Coming soon to an upscale multiplex near you (no poor people allowed, other than those working there for minimum wage)...Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg in "Three Amigos." Watch as these three soon-to-be out of work actors pretending to be public servants fight against public works projects that help the poor and middle classes...
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives considered and passed H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008. The Act authorizes grants to housing agencies to "revitalize severely distressed public housing developments." (CBO analysis)
Well, the House, except for Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and 127 other Republicans.
Note - the final vote for passage was 271 - 130. All of the Democratic members of the AZ delegation and Rick Renzi voted in favor; the aforementioned Flake, Shadegg, and Franks voted against.
Before voting against HOPE, the three amigos supported four failed amendments that would have gutted or at least weakened the impact of the underlying bill. They voted for -
...the Neugebauer Amendment, which would have change the requirement that housing units demolished under a HOPE grant be replaced on a one for one basis to requiring the one-for-one match only if the units were occupied immediately prior to demolition. This is important in places like New Orleans where there are efforts to condemn public housing facilities and replace them with fewer, but larger, for-profit units. With a single stroke, this plan both inhibits the return to N.O. of poor black residents and generates greater profits for developer. (failed 181 - 227)
...the Sessions Amendment, which would have maintained HUD's authority to issue "demolition only" grants. Hmm..."demolition only"...that's an interesting concept for a bill that is supposed to be about renewing and revitalizing public housing. (Failed 186 - 221)
...the King Amendment, which would have barred using HOPE funds to pay for wages mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act (aka - prevailing wage.) I suppose this could be something of an improvement for Rep. King (R-IA). Normally, he spends his time railing about foreign immigrants. It seems that he is setting his sights a little higher now - the American skilled worker. (Failed 136 - 268)
Did I mention that King called the prevailing wage law "racist"?? What a schmuck.
...and the Capito Amendment, which would have removed the mandatory 'green' building standards and made them optional. (Failed 169 - 240)
It's obvious that these three have given up any pretense that they represent the interests of their constituents.
People don't matter to them as much as ideology does.
...OK, OK - Shadegg represents Paradise Valley, which doesn't need HOPE as much as it does clean drinking water. :)
Final note: to those of you who object to the appellation "Three Amigos" for Flake, Franks, and Shadegg, that perhaps that's a little to harshly partisan, keep this in mind -
I could very easily have nicknamed them the "Three Stooges."
Later!
Showing posts with label Franks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Franks. Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Monday, November 12, 2007
Can John Thrasher defeat Trent Franks? It's more likely than you might think...
Trent Franks has been getting a lot of visibility recently, but he may learn that a higher profile isn't all that it's kicked up to be...
I know that the CD2 race between incumbent Republican Trent Franks and Democratic challenger John Thrasher doesn't have the visibility that the CD3 race (incumbent Republican John Shadegg vs. the well-funded challenger Bob Lord), but I hope that no one writes it off - there are some significant parallels between the 2008 race in CD2 and the 2006 CD5 victory by Harry Mitchell over JD Hayworth.
1. In CD5 in 2006 the Republicans have a seemingly overwhelming 16-point registration advantage that isn't so overwhelming when you realize that Independent swing voters make up a large and ever-growing portion of the CD2 electorate.
Just like CD5 in 2006.
2. Trent Franks is a one-issue wing-nut. His issue is abortion - just this year, he has voted against SCHIP because it doesn't protect fetuses (or somesuch nuttery; video at the link), argued in favor of torture because Congress hasn't passed any laws protecting fetuses (guess only unborn people have rights; born people can stick their heads between their legs and kiss their butts goodbye - after they've been waterboarded, baked, frozen, beaten, electrocuted, starved, sleep-deprived, etc.), engaged in multiple rants on the House floor on the topic (October 25, July 19, April 18), cosponsored at least nine bills on the subject (HRes705, HR63, HR618, HR1063, HR1295, HR1457, HR3192, HR3442, HR4133), issued press releases on the subject of abortion (October 24), and gives speeches on the topic (November 4).
In short, he's just like JD Hayworth, substituting a hatred for a woman's right to choose with Hayworth's hatred of immigrants.
And by the end of last year's campaign, people were asking Hayworth "ok, enough on the immigration...what else ya got" and finding that he was an empty suit who didn't have anything else to offer the district.
3. John Thrasher has a well-documented track record of community involvement and education. While his 'community involvement' hasn't included a history of elected office that compares to CD5's Harry Mitchell (city council, mayor, state senate), his career as a teacher may be as significant - last year it seemed that at every event, as many people came up to Harry talking about how he taught them, their siblings, or their children, as did those who came up to him with political story.
Bottom line: students grow up into voters in CD2, just like in CD5.
Oh, and did I mention that while *John* Thrasher may not hold public office, his wife *Jackie* knows a thing or two about upsetting an incumbent Republican with a strong registration advantage. She forced Doug Quelland, seatmate of state House Speaker Jim Weiers, out of office last year.
Bet she might have some insights to offer. :)
Ultimately, while John Thrasher may not be the kind of polished corporate candidate favored by the DCCC and Chris Van Hollen (and his predecessor Rahm Emanuel), his candidacy may present a greater challenge for Franks than Bob Lord's does for John Shadegg. Thrasher is the kind of community icon who, even as an underdog, energizes a race, something that's needed for an uphill fight.
Just like CD5 in 2006.
I know that the CD2 race between incumbent Republican Trent Franks and Democratic challenger John Thrasher doesn't have the visibility that the CD3 race (incumbent Republican John Shadegg vs. the well-funded challenger Bob Lord), but I hope that no one writes it off - there are some significant parallels between the 2008 race in CD2 and the 2006 CD5 victory by Harry Mitchell over JD Hayworth.
1. In CD5 in 2006 the Republicans have a seemingly overwhelming 16-point registration advantage that isn't so overwhelming when you realize that Independent swing voters make up a large and ever-growing portion of the CD2 electorate.
Just like CD5 in 2006.
2. Trent Franks is a one-issue wing-nut. His issue is abortion - just this year, he has voted against SCHIP because it doesn't protect fetuses (or somesuch nuttery; video at the link), argued in favor of torture because Congress hasn't passed any laws protecting fetuses (guess only unborn people have rights; born people can stick their heads between their legs and kiss their butts goodbye - after they've been waterboarded, baked, frozen, beaten, electrocuted, starved, sleep-deprived, etc.), engaged in multiple rants on the House floor on the topic (October 25, July 19, April 18), cosponsored at least nine bills on the subject (HRes705, HR63, HR618, HR1063, HR1295, HR1457, HR3192, HR3442, HR4133), issued press releases on the subject of abortion (October 24), and gives speeches on the topic (November 4).
In short, he's just like JD Hayworth, substituting a hatred for a woman's right to choose with Hayworth's hatred of immigrants.
And by the end of last year's campaign, people were asking Hayworth "ok, enough on the immigration...what else ya got" and finding that he was an empty suit who didn't have anything else to offer the district.
3. John Thrasher has a well-documented track record of community involvement and education. While his 'community involvement' hasn't included a history of elected office that compares to CD5's Harry Mitchell (city council, mayor, state senate), his career as a teacher may be as significant - last year it seemed that at every event, as many people came up to Harry talking about how he taught them, their siblings, or their children, as did those who came up to him with political story.
Bottom line: students grow up into voters in CD2, just like in CD5.
Oh, and did I mention that while *John* Thrasher may not hold public office, his wife *Jackie* knows a thing or two about upsetting an incumbent Republican with a strong registration advantage. She forced Doug Quelland, seatmate of state House Speaker Jim Weiers, out of office last year.
Bet she might have some insights to offer. :)
Ultimately, while John Thrasher may not be the kind of polished corporate candidate favored by the DCCC and Chris Van Hollen (and his predecessor Rahm Emanuel), his candidacy may present a greater challenge for Franks than Bob Lord's does for John Shadegg. Thrasher is the kind of community icon who, even as an underdog, energizes a race, something that's needed for an uphill fight.
Just like CD5 in 2006.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
It's just one of those days...
...one of those days when the hundreds of thousands of people who put in millions of volunteer hours last year working to get Democrats elected to Congress and other offices have to sit back and wonder -
Was all of the effort - the calls, the walking, the talking, the contributions, the organizing, and more - worth it?
Did it made a real difference, or was the only real effect to change the names of the head porters on the gravy train running from K Street to Capitol Hill?
As of this writing, the House is considering approval of HR3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. While the final vote won't come until tomorrow morning, it will pass. The resolution that established the rules for debating HR3688 passed by a margin of 349 - 55.
Note: The only member of the AZ delegation to vote against that particular resolution was Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7). Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) did not vote on the rule.
Earlier in the day, Congress *did* pass HR3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 by a vote of 235 - 184.
AZ delegation: Mitchell, Grijalva, Pastor - aye; Shadegg, Flake, Renzi, Franks - nay; Giffords not voting.
That Act means that gay American workers can't lose their jobs because they are gay.
Of course, the Peru Trade Act means that gay American workers can lose their jobs because they are American.
Not exactly an improvement.
Progressive columnist David Sirota's take on the Agreement is here.
A Teamsters Union press release on the Agreement here.
Edit on 11/8 to update:
As predicted, the Peru trade act passed easily by a 285 - 132 margin. The AZ delegation also voted as expected - Mitchell, Shadegg, Renzi, Franks, and Flake: aye; Pastor and Grijalva: nay; Giffords: not voting.
End edit.
Later!
Was all of the effort - the calls, the walking, the talking, the contributions, the organizing, and more - worth it?
Did it made a real difference, or was the only real effect to change the names of the head porters on the gravy train running from K Street to Capitol Hill?
As of this writing, the House is considering approval of HR3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. While the final vote won't come until tomorrow morning, it will pass. The resolution that established the rules for debating HR3688 passed by a margin of 349 - 55.
Note: The only member of the AZ delegation to vote against that particular resolution was Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7). Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) did not vote on the rule.
Earlier in the day, Congress *did* pass HR3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 by a vote of 235 - 184.
AZ delegation: Mitchell, Grijalva, Pastor - aye; Shadegg, Flake, Renzi, Franks - nay; Giffords not voting.
That Act means that gay American workers can't lose their jobs because they are gay.
Of course, the Peru Trade Act means that gay American workers can lose their jobs because they are American.
Not exactly an improvement.
Progressive columnist David Sirota's take on the Agreement is here.
A Teamsters Union press release on the Agreement here.
Edit on 11/8 to update:
As predicted, the Peru trade act passed easily by a 285 - 132 margin. The AZ delegation also voted as expected - Mitchell, Shadegg, Renzi, Franks, and Flake: aye; Pastor and Grijalva: nay; Giffords: not voting.
End edit.
Later!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing...
edited to add a link below...
Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...
...and reminders of a couple of events...
...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.
...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.
Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )
...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.
From boston.com -
As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.
Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)
...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.
The title -
...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
"Bombardment of some kind"??
Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.
...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.
Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))
...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.
End edit...
Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.
...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'
I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.
Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.
John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.
Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.
From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -
As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.
End edit.
Later!
Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...
...and reminders of a couple of events...
...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.
...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.
Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )
...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.
From boston.com -
Romney passes on high-stakes baseball bet
{snip}
Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo wants to put something important on the line -- his candidacy. His campaign called ABC News to issue this challenge: The Colorado congressman will drop out of the race if the Rockies lose the World Series -- if rival Mitt Romney agrees to pack it in if the Red Sox lose.
As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.
Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)
...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.
The title -
Mitt Romney: The Huckster
He May Have Made $250 Million as a Venture Capitalist, but the Republican Candidate Is Trying to Sell a Party that's Gone Bankrupt
...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
"Bombardment of some kind"??
Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.
...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Bush visits California wildfire victims
{snip}
In San Diego's hard-hit community of Rancho Bernardo, Bush stepped through rubble on a street of Mediterranean-style homes, where houses that remained unscathed were interspersed with what amounted to mere shells of the American dream. He stood with Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat near where a single spiral staircase rested amid rubble that used to be their home and where their burnt-out car had melted into the scorched earth.
"Those of us who are here in government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats," the president said, his arm draped around Mrs. Jeffcoat. Holding her small brown dog on a leash, she fought back tears and Bush kissed her on the head.
Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.
Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))
...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.
End edit...
Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.
...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'
I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.
Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.
John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.
Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.
From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -
Brain-Numbing Dipshittery During the SCHIP Debate
...here is video of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the House floor earlier today, explaining why he must cast a vote against SCHIP, with a giant picture of a fetus behind him. It's like someone bet this douchebag money that he couldn't hit every square on an anti-choice Bingo card, and he said, "Oh yeah? Watch me."
As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.
End edit.
Later!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Quarterly FEC reports - updated
Updated on 10/16 with every incumbent now reporting; many of those who are just 'exploring' haven't filed yet. Many of those, because of the timing of their organization, won't *have* to report until after the first of the year.
Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.
Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81
Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.
Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.
Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.
CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52
John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16
Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68
CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.
This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.
Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38
CD7
Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(
CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.
Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.
A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.
Later!
Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.
Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81
Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.
Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.
Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.
CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52
John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16
Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68
CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.
This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.
Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38
CD7
Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(
CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.
Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.
A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.
Later!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
House Judiciary Committee approves revision to FISA
...and the bill should hit the House floor next week.
The bill, HR3773, is notable both for what it contains, judicial oversight provisions, and what it doesn't contain, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration's violation of privacy and civil liberty laws.
President Bush has demanded both freedom from oversight and that immunity for telecoms, saying that he will veto any bill that doesn't meet both criteria.
The committee hearing went as expected, with Republicans, including Arizona's own Trent Franks, arguing that any judicial oversight only helps terrorists kill Americans, and Democrats arguing "bulls_t."
(OK, so they were a little bit more eloquent than that; the meaning was the same. :) )
After going back and forth over various amendments and the underlying bill for a while, the committee passed the bill along party lines.
The bill isn't perfect. The ACLU has some objections and urges support of the "FISA Modernization Bill" instead of this bill, the RESTORE Act. This bill still gives way too much authority to the President. However, it is a vast improvement over the repugnant "Protect America Act" (PAA) that was passed and signed into law in August.
Note: I couldn't find a link to a bill with the name "FISA Modernization" but I'll keep looking; I think the act that the ACLU prefers is HR3782, "To reiterate the exclusivity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the sole authority to permit the conduct of electronic surveillance, to modernize surveillance authorities...,"introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).
While less than perfect, the RESTORE Act is significantly less vile than the PAA. There will still be a lot of angst over the bill from the Republicans and from Democrats who are afraid of the President (aka - the Blue Dogs), all of whom will attempt to water down the oversight provisions.
And to protect the large campaign contributors in the telecommunication$ indu$try. [Can't forget them :) ]
However, it is something of a compromise bill - it does contain some things that the President wants (blanket warrants that require only an annual review/renewal). It does also contain enough to assuage some of the concerns of civil liberties-focused progressives in Congress.
Further watering-down of civil liberties at the behest of the President and his water carriers on the Hill (like Franks!) will only push the more hesitant members into the 'No' column on the RESTORE Act and increase the likelihood that the Congress will receive and pass a bill that the President will *really* hate.
Hmmm....there's a thought.... :)
Anyway, I have a final question, one that I don't ever expect a straight answer to, so I won't bother actually asking it of Trent Franks, Dan Lungren (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA) and the other opponents of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the House.
So I'll just post it here. :))
It's not an original question (I don't know who first asked it in print, otherwise I'd give credit here), but it needs to be asked again -
Revocation of which part of the Constitution would prevent terrorist attacks?
A simple question, really, but one that the fear-mongers can never answer, because there isn't such a section and they know it. They also know that blind, unreasoning fear is the only thing that the Republican Party has left to offer America and they're hoping they can milk it one more time.
A FireDogLake post by Christy Hardin Smith containing a rough transcript of a statement by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is here.
CongressDaily, via GovExec.com, coverage of the hearing here.
CNN coverage here.
House Judiciary Committee summary of the provisions of the new bill is here; a comparison between the Restore Act and PAA is here.
House Judiciary Committee press release on the hearing here.
Later!
The bill, HR3773, is notable both for what it contains, judicial oversight provisions, and what it doesn't contain, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration's violation of privacy and civil liberty laws.
President Bush has demanded both freedom from oversight and that immunity for telecoms, saying that he will veto any bill that doesn't meet both criteria.
The committee hearing went as expected, with Republicans, including Arizona's own Trent Franks, arguing that any judicial oversight only helps terrorists kill Americans, and Democrats arguing "bulls_t."
(OK, so they were a little bit more eloquent than that; the meaning was the same. :) )
After going back and forth over various amendments and the underlying bill for a while, the committee passed the bill along party lines.
The bill isn't perfect. The ACLU has some objections and urges support of the "FISA Modernization Bill" instead of this bill, the RESTORE Act. This bill still gives way too much authority to the President. However, it is a vast improvement over the repugnant "Protect America Act" (PAA) that was passed and signed into law in August.
Note: I couldn't find a link to a bill with the name "FISA Modernization" but I'll keep looking; I think the act that the ACLU prefers is HR3782, "To reiterate the exclusivity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the sole authority to permit the conduct of electronic surveillance, to modernize surveillance authorities...,"introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).
While less than perfect, the RESTORE Act is significantly less vile than the PAA. There will still be a lot of angst over the bill from the Republicans and from Democrats who are afraid of the President (aka - the Blue Dogs), all of whom will attempt to water down the oversight provisions.
And to protect the large campaign contributors in the telecommunication$ indu$try. [Can't forget them :) ]
However, it is something of a compromise bill - it does contain some things that the President wants (blanket warrants that require only an annual review/renewal). It does also contain enough to assuage some of the concerns of civil liberties-focused progressives in Congress.
Further watering-down of civil liberties at the behest of the President and his water carriers on the Hill (like Franks!) will only push the more hesitant members into the 'No' column on the RESTORE Act and increase the likelihood that the Congress will receive and pass a bill that the President will *really* hate.
Hmmm....there's a thought.... :)
Anyway, I have a final question, one that I don't ever expect a straight answer to, so I won't bother actually asking it of Trent Franks, Dan Lungren (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA) and the other opponents of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the House.
So I'll just post it here. :))
It's not an original question (I don't know who first asked it in print, otherwise I'd give credit here), but it needs to be asked again -
Revocation of which part of the Constitution would prevent terrorist attacks?
A simple question, really, but one that the fear-mongers can never answer, because there isn't such a section and they know it. They also know that blind, unreasoning fear is the only thing that the Republican Party has left to offer America and they're hoping they can milk it one more time.
A FireDogLake post by Christy Hardin Smith containing a rough transcript of a statement by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is here.
CongressDaily, via GovExec.com, coverage of the hearing here.
CNN coverage here.
House Judiciary Committee summary of the provisions of the new bill is here; a comparison between the Restore Act and PAA is here.
House Judiciary Committee press release on the hearing here.
Later!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Quarterly FEC reports are in...
...and I'll let others write about the presidential candidate numbers.
Some of the FEC's quarterly financial reports for active Congressional candidate committees in Arizona.
Incumbents bolded, challengers italicized.
Note: "PAC" numbers include all contributions from non-political party committees. Generally speaking, Republicans had a lot of corporate contributions; Democrats had a lot of union contributions.
CD1 -
Democrat Ellen Simon raised $4,295.54, more than $4K from herself.
Republican Rick Renzi raised $117,698.70, $76,950.00 from PACs.
CD2 -
Republican Trent Franks raised $40,031.00, $9,000 from PACs.
Democrat John Thrasher raised $4,340.00, $3,000 from himself.
CD3 -
Democrat Bob Lord raised $137,968.15, $0 from PACs.
Republican John Shadegg raised $19,338.57, $4,500.00 from PACs.
CD4 -
Democrat Ed Pastor raised $11,650.00, $1,000 from PACs.
CD5 -
Democrat Harry Mitchell raised $234,768.46, $107,162.35 from PACs.
Republican JD Hayworth raised $136.00.
CD6 -
Republican Jeff Flake raised $84,065.00, $3100.00 from PACs.
CD7 -
Democrat Raul Grijalva raised $26,843.86, $25,500 from PACs.
CD8 -
Democrat Gabrielle Giffords raised $325,252.61, $104,966.17 from PACs.
Democrat Jeff Latas raised $900.00, all from himself.
Active during the quarter, but no contributions received - Bob Stump (R-CD3), Ron Drake (R-CD7, committee termination report filed), Eva Bacal (D-CD8), Jim Kolbe (R-CD8), Larry King (D-CD5), Herb Paine (D-CD3, termination report filed 03-01-2007),
Brief observation: By far, Mitchell, Giffords, and Renzi were the most active incumbent fundraisers this quarter, but that's no surprise - they are all targeted for defeat in the next election; Mitchell and Giffords because they are in their first terms, and Renzi because of his ethical and residency issues.
Brief prediction: Expect Shadegg to get his fundraising organization into gear after the showing of Bob Lord (top fundraiser among the non-incumbents, #3 overall) this quarter.
Some of the FEC's quarterly financial reports for active Congressional candidate committees in Arizona.
Incumbents bolded, challengers italicized.
Note: "PAC" numbers include all contributions from non-political party committees. Generally speaking, Republicans had a lot of corporate contributions; Democrats had a lot of union contributions.
CD1 -
Democrat Ellen Simon raised $4,295.54, more than $4K from herself.
Republican Rick Renzi raised $117,698.70, $76,950.00 from PACs.
CD2 -
Republican Trent Franks raised $40,031.00, $9,000 from PACs.
Democrat John Thrasher raised $4,340.00, $3,000 from himself.
CD3 -
Democrat Bob Lord raised $137,968.15, $0 from PACs.
Republican John Shadegg raised $19,338.57, $4,500.00 from PACs.
CD4 -
Democrat Ed Pastor raised $11,650.00, $1,000 from PACs.
CD5 -
Democrat Harry Mitchell raised $234,768.46, $107,162.35 from PACs.
Republican JD Hayworth raised $136.00.
CD6 -
Republican Jeff Flake raised $84,065.00, $3100.00 from PACs.
CD7 -
Democrat Raul Grijalva raised $26,843.86, $25,500 from PACs.
CD8 -
Democrat Gabrielle Giffords raised $325,252.61, $104,966.17 from PACs.
Democrat Jeff Latas raised $900.00, all from himself.
Active during the quarter, but no contributions received - Bob Stump (R-CD3), Ron Drake (R-CD7, committee termination report filed), Eva Bacal (D-CD8), Jim Kolbe (R-CD8), Larry King (D-CD5), Herb Paine (D-CD3, termination report filed 03-01-2007),
Brief observation: By far, Mitchell, Giffords, and Renzi were the most active incumbent fundraisers this quarter, but that's no surprise - they are all targeted for defeat in the next election; Mitchell and Giffords because they are in their first terms, and Renzi because of his ethical and residency issues.
Brief prediction: Expect Shadegg to get his fundraising organization into gear after the showing of Bob Lord (top fundraiser among the non-incumbents, #3 overall) this quarter.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
And the rankings are in...
Thanks to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for the heads-up on this...
...courtesy of the National Journal.
[Note: I wasn't going to do this post as it's the type of post that Stacy at AZ Congress Watch usually does, and does very well. However, she skipped this one and covered the Humane Society's Congressional report card.
...Guess she thinks that puppies and kittens are more fun than ideology.
...Guess she's right. :)) ]
The National Journal has published in 2006 Congressional vote ratings and has ranked Congressfolk on a most conservative/liberal scale.
AZ Summary: Trent Franks (with the now-departed JD Hayworth close behind) was among the most conservative of all of members of the House; Jon Kyl was nearly the most conservative in the Senate. Raul Grijalva was among the most liberal members of the House.
The AZ delegation's numbers at a glance:
In the Senate (ranked as 'most conservative) -
Jon Kyl is the more conservative of our two U.S. Senators. He ranked 3rd overall, coming in as tied for the most conservative on economic policy, 19th on social policy, and tied for first on foreign policy;
John McCain is the 46th most conservative. He was 36th most conservative on economic policy, 53rd on social policy, and 42nd in foreign policy.
In the House -
Note: As new members, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell are not part of these rankings.
[Key: overall ranking, economic policy votes, social policy votes, foreign policy votes]
Republicans, ranked as 'most conservative':
Rick Renzi (CD1) - 177th, 160th, 159th, 186th
Trent Franks (CD2) - 37th, 67th, 13th, 80th
John Shadegg (CD3) - 144th, 114th, 138th, 144th
JD Hayworth (CD5) - 46th, 88th, 15th, 82nd
Jeff Flake (CD6) - 216th, 182nd, 230th, 230th
Jim Kolbe (CD8) - 166th, 15th, 248th, 188th
Democrats, ranked as 'most liberal':
[Key: overall ranking, economic policy votes, social policy votes, foreign policy votes]
Ed Pastor (CD4) - 75th, 117th, 19th, 102nd.
Raul Grijalva (CD7) - 3rd, 25th, 3rd, 2nd
The only real surprise in all this?
I didn't realize that Jeff Flake is the face of the "reasonable conservative" in D.C. This isn't a dig at him or at his 'conservative' cred; have no fear, I think he is verrry conservative and disagree with him on most social and political issues.
I just didn't realize how much he votes the issue, his constituents, or even his conscience over the party line.
[Hey, it's either that or the Republican Party has moved so far to the loony end of the political spectrum that a staunch social and fiscal conservative like Flake looks like a moderate by comparison.]
Of course, the nutjob wing (aka - 'Coulter Wing') of the Repubs may look at the National Journal's numbers (and this post!) and run someone at Flake during the next primary as punishment for his backsliding.
Good God, I think I just complimented a Republican; even though the compliment is of a 'back-handed' nature, I must be tired.
Good night!
...courtesy of the National Journal.
[Note: I wasn't going to do this post as it's the type of post that Stacy at AZ Congress Watch usually does, and does very well. However, she skipped this one and covered the Humane Society's Congressional report card.
...Guess she thinks that puppies and kittens are more fun than ideology.
...Guess she's right. :)) ]
The National Journal has published in 2006 Congressional vote ratings and has ranked Congressfolk on a most conservative/liberal scale.
AZ Summary: Trent Franks (with the now-departed JD Hayworth close behind) was among the most conservative of all of members of the House; Jon Kyl was nearly the most conservative in the Senate. Raul Grijalva was among the most liberal members of the House.
The AZ delegation's numbers at a glance:
In the Senate (ranked as 'most conservative) -
Jon Kyl is the more conservative of our two U.S. Senators. He ranked 3rd overall, coming in as tied for the most conservative on economic policy, 19th on social policy, and tied for first on foreign policy;
John McCain is the 46th most conservative. He was 36th most conservative on economic policy, 53rd on social policy, and 42nd in foreign policy.
In the House -
Note: As new members, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell are not part of these rankings.
[Key: overall ranking, economic policy votes, social policy votes, foreign policy votes]
Republicans, ranked as 'most conservative':
Rick Renzi (CD1) - 177th, 160th, 159th, 186th
Trent Franks (CD2) - 37th, 67th, 13th, 80th
John Shadegg (CD3) - 144th, 114th, 138th, 144th
JD Hayworth (CD5) - 46th, 88th, 15th, 82nd
Jeff Flake (CD6) - 216th, 182nd, 230th, 230th
Jim Kolbe (CD8) - 166th, 15th, 248th, 188th
Democrats, ranked as 'most liberal':
[Key: overall ranking, economic policy votes, social policy votes, foreign policy votes]
Ed Pastor (CD4) - 75th, 117th, 19th, 102nd.
Raul Grijalva (CD7) - 3rd, 25th, 3rd, 2nd
The only real surprise in all this?
I didn't realize that Jeff Flake is the face of the "reasonable conservative" in D.C. This isn't a dig at him or at his 'conservative' cred; have no fear, I think he is verrry conservative and disagree with him on most social and political issues.
I just didn't realize how much he votes the issue, his constituents, or even his conscience over the party line.
[Hey, it's either that or the Republican Party has moved so far to the loony end of the political spectrum that a staunch social and fiscal conservative like Flake looks like a moderate by comparison.]
Of course, the nutjob wing (aka - 'Coulter Wing') of the Repubs may look at the National Journal's numbers (and this post!) and run someone at Flake during the next primary as punishment for his backsliding.
Good God, I think I just complimented a Republican; even though the compliment is of a 'back-handed' nature, I must be tired.
Good night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)