Heads up on this courtesy Ron Pies' AZCentral.com blog...
The grades of AZ's Congressional delegation, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund -
Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Note: Mitchell has just been endorsed by the VFW Political Action Committee.
Gabrelle Giffords (D-CD8) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Ed Pastor (D-CD4) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) - A - comment: "12 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Rick Renzi (R-CD1) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Trent Franks (R-CD2) - C - comment: "8 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John Shadegg (R-CD3) - B - comment: "10 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - C - comment: "7 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John McCain, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential nominee - D - comment: "3 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator - C - comment: "5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
The average grade for the Democratic members of AZ's delegation? 4.25 (A = 4 points, B = 3, etc., with "+" = an additional .5)
The average grade for the Republican members of AZ's delegation? 2.33; without the soon-to-be gone Renzi inflating their grade? 2, barely a C.
OK, so it's not much of a surprise that AZ's Republicans did so poorly on veterans' issues when compared to AZ's Democrats - it's long been common knowledge that Republican 'support our veterans' rhetoric is just that, *rhetoric.*
Not substance.
However, who would have guessed that the biggest drag on the Reps' grade would be John McCain, the former naval aviator who touts his status as a former POW at every turn?
It seems that Rudy Giuliani's "noun, verb, 9-11" meaningless spiel has been replaced by John McCain's "noun, verb, "POW" standard stump speech as the biggest snow job in American politics.
The only veterans McCain is concerned about are himself and those that support him with money or Swift Boat-style ad appearances; the rest mean nothing to him.
Access the entire report card here.
Later!
Showing posts with label Grijalva. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grijalva. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout
A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell concerning the Wall Street bailout proposal floated by the Bush Administration.
Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.
The Congressman's response, via email -
I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.
Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.
...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.
Later!
Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.
The Congressman's response, via email -
Dear [cpmaz]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1424, the economic recovery package.
The current economic crisis extends far beyond Wall Street or Washington. It affects us all. If the credit market freezes, then it is going to become dramatically more difficult for anyone to borrow money to purchase a home or a car, or to send their kids to college. Businesses, large and small, will be cut off from the credit they need to stock their shelves and make payroll.
Throughout consideration of this rescue package, I believed that both parties needed to come together to forge a compromise that would protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence. For this reason, I opposed the blank check proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. And, with less than 24 hours for deliberation and public comment, I voted against H.R. 3997, a modified proposal that House Leaders rushed to the floor on September 29, 2008, and failed by a vote of 205 to 228.
After the House of Representatives rejected these hasty proposals, members of both parties worked together to make significant improvements to this legislation.
H.R. 1424 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to begin an aggressive program to restore liquidity to our nation's credit market. Specifically, it authorizes the Department Treasury to begin buying and re-selling certain mortgage backed securities that are currently preventing lenders from issuing credit. Unlike the lump sum $700 billion pay out in the Paulson plan, the legislation provides the Secretary with an initial $250 billion, followed by another $100 billion upon a Treasury Department report to Congress. The Secretary could then request up to an additional $350 billion, however, Congress will be given 15 days to vote to stop this from happening if it does not approve of how the Secretary is managing the rescue plan, or does not want to commit additional taxpayer funds to it.
I am not happy with everything in the new bill, especially the earmarks that the Senate snuck into the bill at the last-minute. This is precisely the kind of legislating that makes the public so distrustful of Congress and so suspicious when they are asked to support an important economic rescue package. This is disappointing on many fronts, particularly because I spent nearly three decades teaching government at Tempe High School, and I am certain that this is not how our political process was intended to function.
However, inaction would cripple our economy.
To its credit, the new package includes improvements to protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence.
It increases Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") insurance limits to $250,000. This is not only important protection to individual depositors, but also to small businesses that keep payrolls in banks and credit unions and need to know these funds are secure. This provision was not included in the Paulson plan or the first bill brought to the House on September 29.
In addition, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 puts a stop to so-called "golden parachutes" - extravagant exit bonuses to executives who leave companies that may have had a hand in creating the current crisis.
Also, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 will protect taxpayers by making sure that the recovery program is subject to oversight and judicial review. Four separate entities will provide constant oversight to ensure efficiency and fairness in the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). This program will buy and re-sell assets from distressed companies, and new provisions for recoupment ensure that costs from the program are not passed on to taxpayers.
The new package will also help many homeowners in danger of foreclosure by allowing the government to work with loan servicers to re-structure mortgages.
Significantly, the new package includes a recoupment provision, which requires the President to submit legislation to Congress in five years to begin recouping any losses incurred by the federal government as a result of TARP from the financial industry in order to make taxpayers whole.
Finally, the new package will extend key tax credits to encourage investments in alternative energies like solar. Right here in Arizona, APS and Abengoa are planning to build the world's largest solar power plant - big enough to power 70,000 homes. Without these tax credits, it will not happen. These investments will be taken overseas. Now, the investments spawned by these tax breaks will help drive our economy forward by creating thousands of jobs and producing more than $4 billion worth of energy over the next 30 years.
I am disappointed that the final package did not extend important cuts to capital gains and estate taxes. These cuts are set to expire and I think the last thing we want to do is have investors worried about a tax increase. Last year, Representative Christopher Shays and I introduced H.R. 3170, Capital Gains and Estate Tax Relief Act, to make these cuts permanent, and I believe that the inclusion of this legislation would have encouraged investment and provided important certainty to our tax code.
However, with an economic disaster looming, I believe we had a responsibility to act. The final package was approved by the U.S. Senate on October 1, 2008 by a 74-25 vote. I voted for, and the House passed the economic package two days later by a bipartisan vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the legislation into law the same day.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about our economy and the government's economic recovery package. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.
If you would like to receive e-mail updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at www.mitchell.house.gov.Sincerely,
Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress
HEM/jw
I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.
Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.
...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.
Later!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wow! The AZ Congressional delegation can agree on something besides postal facility namings...
Of course, even on those rare occasions when AZ's federal legislators are on the same page, it's for very different reasons...
As has been reported in many places, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street investment firms, and the entire Arizona delegation voted against it.
Note: more info on the bailout is available from the House Financial Services Committee here.
Their reasons were varied - from the Dems hating it because it didn't contain enough protections for taxpayers to the Reps hating it because it contained some protections.
A number of MSM pundits and writers have opined that the measure was defeated by members of the House who are facing tough reelection battles (AP via TriValleyCentral.com). There may be an element of truth in that idea, but an examination of even just the AZ delegation's situations belies that the notion is universally accurate -
Ed Pastor (D-CD4), Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), and Jeff Flake (R-CD6) are totally safe in their races.
Trent Franks (R-CD2) is close to safe in his, too.
Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) is facing a solid challenger in Tim Bee, but she is solidly positioned herself, and should retain her seat.
Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) is facing a tough fight because of his district's demographics (40K more registered Republicans) and John Shadegg (R-CD3) is facing the fight of his political career (a super-strong challenger in Bob Lord and his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year).
Rick Renzi (R-CD1) isn't even running (something about a federal indictment and upcoming trial).
So only two of the eight AZ Congresscritters who voted against the bailout are facing serious election threats (apologies to supporters of Tim Bee and John Thrasher, but that's the way I see it), yet all eight voted against it.
Simply put, the Bush Administration's bailout proposal was just a bad idea, even for people who believe that a government response to the turmoil in the markets is appropriate.
After all of the finger-pointing dies down (publicly, anyway), look for some sort of bailout proposal to come out of the House, probably with a price tag that's much lower than the Administration's desired $700 billion blank check, and also with some serious safeguards for the taxpayers' money.
At this point though, any changes will probably appeal more to Democrats looking to protect taxpayers' interests than appeal to Republicans looking to use this crisis as an excuse to further deregulate the financial markets.
Don't expect the AZ delegation to be in so much agreement next time.
On the Democratic side, the AZ Star on the reasons that Reps. Grijlava and Giffords voted against the bill here; the Ahwatukee Foothills News on Rep. Harry Mitchell's objections here. Bob Lord's (D challenger in CD3) press release here.
On the Republican side, Rep. Shadegg's op-ed in USA Today is here; a Rep. Flake quote is here (Phoenix Business Journal).
Note2: I'd have linked to the websites of Reps. Giffords and Pastor, but the House website is still experiencing problems related to its heavy site traffic on Monday, and couldn't access those pages.
Note3: ever-loyal (and perceptive!) reader and frequent commenter Elizabeth noted in an email that after the failure of the bailout on Monday, followed by the stock market's precipitous drop, the Washington Post ran this story on the front page of their website.
It chronicles what is truly the greatest crisis facing American society today - the decline in home run totals in Major League Baseball.
Later...
As has been reported in many places, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street investment firms, and the entire Arizona delegation voted against it.
Note: more info on the bailout is available from the House Financial Services Committee here.
Their reasons were varied - from the Dems hating it because it didn't contain enough protections for taxpayers to the Reps hating it because it contained some protections.
A number of MSM pundits and writers have opined that the measure was defeated by members of the House who are facing tough reelection battles (AP via TriValleyCentral.com). There may be an element of truth in that idea, but an examination of even just the AZ delegation's situations belies that the notion is universally accurate -
Ed Pastor (D-CD4), Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), and Jeff Flake (R-CD6) are totally safe in their races.
Trent Franks (R-CD2) is close to safe in his, too.
Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) is facing a solid challenger in Tim Bee, but she is solidly positioned herself, and should retain her seat.
Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) is facing a tough fight because of his district's demographics (40K more registered Republicans) and John Shadegg (R-CD3) is facing the fight of his political career (a super-strong challenger in Bob Lord and his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year).
Rick Renzi (R-CD1) isn't even running (something about a federal indictment and upcoming trial).
So only two of the eight AZ Congresscritters who voted against the bailout are facing serious election threats (apologies to supporters of Tim Bee and John Thrasher, but that's the way I see it), yet all eight voted against it.
Simply put, the Bush Administration's bailout proposal was just a bad idea, even for people who believe that a government response to the turmoil in the markets is appropriate.
After all of the finger-pointing dies down (publicly, anyway), look for some sort of bailout proposal to come out of the House, probably with a price tag that's much lower than the Administration's desired $700 billion blank check, and also with some serious safeguards for the taxpayers' money.
At this point though, any changes will probably appeal more to Democrats looking to protect taxpayers' interests than appeal to Republicans looking to use this crisis as an excuse to further deregulate the financial markets.
Don't expect the AZ delegation to be in so much agreement next time.
On the Democratic side, the AZ Star on the reasons that Reps. Grijlava and Giffords voted against the bill here; the Ahwatukee Foothills News on Rep. Harry Mitchell's objections here. Bob Lord's (D challenger in CD3) press release here.
On the Republican side, Rep. Shadegg's op-ed in USA Today is here; a Rep. Flake quote is here (Phoenix Business Journal).
Note2: I'd have linked to the websites of Reps. Giffords and Pastor, but the House website is still experiencing problems related to its heavy site traffic on Monday, and couldn't access those pages.
Note3: ever-loyal (and perceptive!) reader and frequent commenter Elizabeth noted in an email that after the failure of the bailout on Monday, followed by the stock market's precipitous drop, the Washington Post ran this story on the front page of their website.
It chronicles what is truly the greatest crisis facing American society today - the decline in home run totals in Major League Baseball.
Later...
Friday, August 01, 2008
Those Republicans, working to protect America from those darn lawyers*
*well, except for the lawyers who are working for the Republicans as they try to undermine the Constitution...
On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.
It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.
As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.
"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).
On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".
Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).
Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.
For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).
OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.
The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.
It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.
Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.
The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).
The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.
Anyway, have a good night...
On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.
It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.
As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.
"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).
On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".
Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).
Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.
For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).
OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.
The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.
It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.
Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.
The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).
The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.
Anyway, have a good night...
Friday, July 25, 2008
Headlines...
Still have the whole "short attention span" thing going on...
Today, though, it seems to be combined with a fascination with betting... :)
...From AZCentral.com -
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes a Republican legislator to use Thursday's incident at SMCC as justification to propose another "guns in schools" bill?
...From AP -
Assuming that the defendants and their families seek donations to pay for their legal fees, anyone want to start a pool on how much money they receive from the Pearce/Ready/Childress crowd here in AZ?
From AP -
Anybody want in on a pool based on the number of Lynwood cops signing up for their new "Ruler Patrol"? I've got dibs on "0"... :)
From Politicker.com -
Note: the full video is at the Politicker link.
...And in the "certain to generate headlines" department, according to next week's House schedule (courtesy The Weekly Leader from Steny Hoyer's office), the House will be considering H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would accord women faced with gender discrimination some of the same legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination (think: lawsuits for both compensatory and punitive damages). The bill passed the House Education and Labor Committee this week on a party-line vote after Republicans trotted out "trial lawyers" and "gas prices" as among the reasons that they opposed the bill. (Workforce Management)
Anybody want to bet against more of the same when the bill reaches the House floor on Thursday or Friday?
Didn't think so. Hell, they'll probably add "ANWR," "offshore drilling," and "terrorism" to the list just to spice things up. :))
Democratic press release on the bill here.
Republican press release on the bill here.
Note: all four Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - are among the 230 cosponsors of the bill.
...Finally, in a 'non-headline' item, the AZ Republic has posted the responses to its candidate questionnaires online here. The list of respondents is incomplete. In some cases, it's obvious by the presence of one or another opponent in a given race that some candidates were asked but simply didn't respond. In other cases, there is only one unchallenged contender so they may not have even been asked to complete a questionnaire.
Later!
Today, though, it seems to be combined with a fascination with betting... :)
...From AZCentral.com -
Gunman suspected of shooting 3 apologizes to 'innocent' victims
The 22-year-old Phoenix man suspected of shooting three people at South Mountain Community College confessed and apologized to victims Friday during his initial court appearance.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes a Republican legislator to use Thursday's incident at SMCC as justification to propose another "guns in schools" bill?
...From AP -
Pa. teens charged in fatal beating of immigrant
PORT CARBON, Pa. (AP) — Three white teens were charged Friday in what officials said was an epithet-filled fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in a small northeast Pennsylvania coal town. Brandon J. Piekarsky, 16, and Colin J. Walsh, 17, were charged as adults with homicide and ethnic intimidation in the July 12 attack on Luis Ramirez.
Assuming that the defendants and their families seek donations to pay for their legal fees, anyone want to start a pool on how much money they receive from the Pearce/Ready/Childress crowd here in AZ?
From AP -
It's the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb
LYNWOOD, Ill. (AP) — Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.
Anybody want in on a pool based on the number of Lynwood cops signing up for their new "Ruler Patrol"? I've got dibs on "0"... :)
From Politicker.com -
Arizona Dems use Heller's statement in ad knocking Republican incumbentAnyone want in on a pool on how loudly Shadegg tells Heller to "shut the Heller up! Bob Lord doesn't need your help!"? (Sorry - couldn't resist that one. :)) )
The Arizona Democratic Party has released an Internet video ripping U.S. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), and the ad's main message comes from Republican Congressman Dean Heller (R-Carson City).
The video features a photo of Heller with remarks he made earlier this month to the Las Vegas Review Journal, saying the 1994 GOP Congressional freshman — famous for seizing the U.S. House from Democrats for the first time in decades — had been changed by the culture in Washington.
Note: the full video is at the Politicker link.
...And in the "certain to generate headlines" department, according to next week's House schedule (courtesy The Weekly Leader from Steny Hoyer's office), the House will be considering H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would accord women faced with gender discrimination some of the same legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination (think: lawsuits for both compensatory and punitive damages). The bill passed the House Education and Labor Committee this week on a party-line vote after Republicans trotted out "trial lawyers" and "gas prices" as among the reasons that they opposed the bill. (Workforce Management)
Anybody want to bet against more of the same when the bill reaches the House floor on Thursday or Friday?
Didn't think so. Hell, they'll probably add "ANWR," "offshore drilling," and "terrorism" to the list just to spice things up. :))
Democratic press release on the bill here.
Republican press release on the bill here.
Note: all four Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - are among the 230 cosponsors of the bill.
...Finally, in a 'non-headline' item, the AZ Republic has posted the responses to its candidate questionnaires online here. The list of respondents is incomplete. In some cases, it's obvious by the presence of one or another opponent in a given race that some candidates were asked but simply didn't respond. In other cases, there is only one unchallenged contender so they may not have even been asked to complete a questionnaire.
Later!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
FEC Reports are in....
Others have covered this area already, but have tended to focus on their own CDs; the basic raw numbers from all CDs with active committees are included in this post.
Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.
CD1 -
Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46
Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36
Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88
Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09
Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96
CD2 -
John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90
Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83
CD3 -
Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25
John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30
The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.
Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.
CD4 -
Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55
CD5 -
Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22
David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10
Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10
Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79
Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33
Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89
The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.
Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."
OK, OK, probably not... :))
Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.
CD6 -
Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91
Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52
CD7 -
Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.
CD8 -
Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80
Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62
No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).
Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).
Later!
Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.
CD1 -
Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46
Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36
Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88
Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09
Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96
CD2 -
John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90
Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83
CD3 -
Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25
John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30
The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.
Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.
CD4 -
Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55
CD5 -
Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22
David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10
Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10
Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79
Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33
Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89
The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.
Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."
OK, OK, probably not... :))
Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.
CD6 -
Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91
Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52
CD7 -
Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.
CD8 -
Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80
Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62
No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).
Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).
Later!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
How do you split 30 pieces of silver 105 ways?
On Friday, the House passed an update of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 293 -129. The bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration in their efforts to spy on Americans.
In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)
AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.
I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -
'Nuff said.
For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.
Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.
ACLU press release here.
Good night.
In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)
AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.
I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -
To Congressman Harry Mitchell, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the 103 other Democrats who joined the entire Republican caucus (excepting Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois, who, for some unknown reason, voted against the measure) in supporting the bill that George Bush wanted:
1. One of the rationalizations given to support this bill was that it was "necessary" in order to ensure the safety of Americans. The only problem with that story is that it is put forth by the President and his lackeys, who, as evidenced by the testimony on Friday by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, lie the way that normal people breathe, and have been doing so for nearly eight years.
2. Some of you might say that it was necessary to compromise to get the FISA update passed. Perhaps it was, but when the President gets everything that he wanted, it isn't "compromise," it's "surrender."
3. Each and every one of you should remember that you were elected to work for your constituents' best interests, not the President's. In no way does retroactive immunity for telecoms or decreased judicial oversight of Administration activities benefit your constituents.
'Nuff said.
For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.
Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.
ACLU press release here.
Good night.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Whew - got scared there for a minute
Here I was, all prepared to write a post criticizing the Democrats in Congress for passing H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The bill passed by a 324 - 84 margin (Giffords, Mitchell, Pastor, Grijalva - yea; Franks, Flake, Renzi, Shadegg - nay).
The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.
AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.
The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.
Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.
The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?
Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.
I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.
Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.
The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.
And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.
In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.
Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.
The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -
It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.
In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.
While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.
Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.
The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.
AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.
The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.
Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.
The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?
Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.
I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.
Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ANTITRUST TASK FORCE.
The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.
And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.
In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.
Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.
The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -
It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.
In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.
While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.
Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
House Republicans abdicate their professional responsibilities
Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass part of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008. The part that they failed to pass was the part provided supplemental funding for Bush's occupation of Iraq.
I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.
The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.
All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.
As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.
And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.
See you in November.
By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.
Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."
Other details of today's votes -
The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,
Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.
A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.
The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.
Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.
Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)
The Hill's coverage here.
AP coverage here.
Later!
I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.
The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.
All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.
As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.
And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.
See you in November.
By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.
Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."
Other details of today's votes -
The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,
Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.
A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.
The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.
Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.
Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)
The Hill's coverage here.
AP coverage here.
Later!
Monday, April 28, 2008
AZ's Democratic Delegation Finalized
At Saturday's meeting of the Democratic State Committee, members selected PLEO (party leader/elected official) and At-Large delegates to this summer's national convention. Some delegates are pledged to Clinton, some to Obama.
The big news of the convention concerned the election of a new 1st Vice-Chair (and automatic superdelegate) of the ADP. Early expectations were that the slot would go to a Clinton supporter, but in a bit of a surprise, Charlene Fernandez, chair of the Yuma County Democratic Party, won the slot after announcing that she supports Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination.
There is an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor (from a state committee member) that one of the Clinton superdelegates may challenge the election of Fernandez. I'll look into this, but if anything comes of it, Tedski will probably have the scoop first (something about him being on the state committee, a brother on the state committee, a mom on the state committee, and so forth :)) ).
The final (pending any challenges) list, courtesy the website of the Arizona Democratic Party (superdelegate endorsement info courtesy PolitickerAZ) -
Uncommitted superdelegates -
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ8)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ5)
State Attorney General Terry Goddard
Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Don Bivens
Clinton delegates
Superdelegates -
Congressman Ed Pastor (AZ4)
Democratic National Committee member Janice C. Brunson
DNC member Joe Rios
DNC member Carolyn Warner
PLEO -
Arizona Sen. Amanda Aguirre
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos
Arizona Democratic Party Vice-Chairman Tony J. Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley
At-Large -
Arizona Sen. Ken Cheuvront
Fountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny Dickey
Adam Falk
Katie Hobbs
Michael Incorvaia
Amanda Simpson
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
At-Large Alternates -
DNC Member-elect and Arizona Democratic Party secretary Judy Kennedy
Arizona Rep. Robert Meza
District level delegates -
Jack Jackson, Jr.
Greg Kaighn
Dawn Knight
Nikki Basque (alternate)
Bree Boehlke
Debra Boehlke
Robert Boehlke
Matthew Miller (alternate)
Howard Bell
Jim Pederson
Lois Pfau
Lisa White (alternate)
Dana Kennedy
Jose Rivas
Angie Crouse
George Paterakis
Beverly Fox-Miller
Roman Ullman
Elizabeth Brown (alternate)
David Martinez
Gail Beeler
Elly Anderson
Chris Campas
JoJene E. Mills
Bruce Heurlin (alternate)
Obama Delegates
Superdelegates -
Governor Janet Napolitano
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ7)
ADP 1st Vice Chair Charlene Fernandez
PLEO -
Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned J. Norris
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema
At-Large -
Magdalena Barajas
Sen. Dennis DeConcini
Ruben Gallego Arizona
Rep. David Schapira
Brandan Spradling
At-Large Alternate -
Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson
District level delegates -
Christopher Clark-Dechene
Angela Lefevre
Shirley A. McAllister
Eddie Smith
Mark Manoil
Genevieve M. Vega
David Gass
Katharine Widland
Sean Bowie
Donna M. Gratehouse
Lauren Kuby
James J. Brodie (alternate)
John Chiazza
Kit Filbey
Paul Eckerstrom
Lisa Fernandez
John C. Adams
Patricia L. Canady
Congratulations to everyone, and hope to see you in Denver...
The big news of the convention concerned the election of a new 1st Vice-Chair (and automatic superdelegate) of the ADP. Early expectations were that the slot would go to a Clinton supporter, but in a bit of a surprise, Charlene Fernandez, chair of the Yuma County Democratic Party, won the slot after announcing that she supports Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination.
There is an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor (from a state committee member) that one of the Clinton superdelegates may challenge the election of Fernandez. I'll look into this, but if anything comes of it, Tedski will probably have the scoop first (something about him being on the state committee, a brother on the state committee, a mom on the state committee, and so forth :)) ).
The final (pending any challenges) list, courtesy the website of the Arizona Democratic Party (superdelegate endorsement info courtesy PolitickerAZ) -
Uncommitted superdelegates -
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ8)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ5)
State Attorney General Terry Goddard
Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Don Bivens
Clinton delegates
Superdelegates -
Congressman Ed Pastor (AZ4)
Democratic National Committee member Janice C. Brunson
DNC member Joe Rios
DNC member Carolyn Warner
PLEO -
Arizona Sen. Amanda Aguirre
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos
Arizona Democratic Party Vice-Chairman Tony J. Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley
At-Large -
Arizona Sen. Ken Cheuvront
Fountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny Dickey
Adam Falk
Katie Hobbs
Michael Incorvaia
Amanda Simpson
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
At-Large Alternates -
DNC Member-elect and Arizona Democratic Party secretary Judy Kennedy
Arizona Rep. Robert Meza
District level delegates -
Jack Jackson, Jr.
Greg Kaighn
Dawn Knight
Nikki Basque (alternate)
Bree Boehlke
Debra Boehlke
Robert Boehlke
Matthew Miller (alternate)
Howard Bell
Jim Pederson
Lois Pfau
Lisa White (alternate)
Dana Kennedy
Jose Rivas
Angie Crouse
George Paterakis
Beverly Fox-Miller
Roman Ullman
Elizabeth Brown (alternate)
David Martinez
Gail Beeler
Elly Anderson
Chris Campas
JoJene E. Mills
Bruce Heurlin (alternate)
Obama Delegates
Superdelegates -
Governor Janet Napolitano
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ7)
ADP 1st Vice Chair Charlene Fernandez
PLEO -
Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned J. Norris
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema
At-Large -
Magdalena Barajas
Sen. Dennis DeConcini
Ruben Gallego Arizona
Rep. David Schapira
Brandan Spradling
At-Large Alternate -
Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson
District level delegates -
Christopher Clark-Dechene
Angela Lefevre
Shirley A. McAllister
Eddie Smith
Mark Manoil
Genevieve M. Vega
David Gass
Katharine Widland
Sean Bowie
Donna M. Gratehouse
Lauren Kuby
James J. Brodie (alternate)
John Chiazza
Kit Filbey
Paul Eckerstrom
Lisa Fernandez
John C. Adams
Patricia L. Canady
Congratulations to everyone, and hope to see you in Denver...
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Quarterly FEC Reports Are Pouring In...
They're not all into the FEC yet, so I'll update over the next few days.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
“We could not have come this far or raised this much without the support of the over 1,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who have contributed to my campaign,” Lord said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support. We will change Washington – together.”
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing
...Guess the Republican Party's worshipful love of 'private property rights' is exceeded only by their hatred for brown people.
From the Arizona Daily Star (emphasis added) -
Last year, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) introduced H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation Security Act. The bill has been languishing in various committees since its introduction; maybe Chertoff's open contempt for the laws and people of the United States will inspire a couple of committee chairs to get off their asses.
Rep. Grijalva's press release on Chertoff's waivers of law here.
The Department of Homeland Security's press release here.
...Congratulations go out to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) on the House unanimously passing his H.R. 4847, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008.
The bill authorizes nearly $300 million in appropriations over a four year period for many things, including training for improved fighting of fires such as those from terrorism, natural disasters, and wildfires (Arizona has been known to have one or two of those, hasn't it?? ).
Mitchell's press release on the matter here.
CQPolitics' story on the vote here.
...Guess that now that people aren't blindly buying into the 'fear' component of their "fear and smear" campaign to retain control of the White House (and to perhap regain control of Congress), the Republicans have decided to minimize the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
"Primarily a state consideration"???
So, in the highly unlikely event that Osama bin Laden is ever captured, does that statement mean that Congressman Issa believes the District Attorney for New York County has first dibs on him (for roughly 3000 counts of murder in Manhattan)??
...From the "Doesn't get along well with others" Department:
It's not enough for the Bush-led Department of Justice to ignore Congress, now it's ignoring the courts, too.
From the L.A. Times -
The problem isn't only with the Justice Department, either.
Also from the Times' story -
I suppose some of the crack offenders left hanging (so to speak) by the foot-dragging of the DOJ and the courts *could* appeal directly to George Bush for relief, but looking at the list of his most recent pardons, they shouldn't expect much help in from that direction.
Of the 15 pardons listed, 1 was for marijuana, one for cocaine, one for heroin, and one for distribution of an unnamed controlled substance that pre-dates crack; the others were non-narcotics-related offenses.
No crack offenders to be found.
Later!
From the Arizona Daily Star (emphasis added) -
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff likes to argue that illegal traffic across the border "has caused severe and profound impacts to the environment."
Trash and litter don't begin to compare to the severe and profound impacts to the environment that could follow Chertoff's high-handed decision on Tuesday to waive 36 laws, ignore local expertise and concerns, shut down vital wildlife corridors and slam up border fencing.
{snip}
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl...told Fox News Tuesday that Chertoff was just doing his job.
"We gave him the authority for the waivers," Kyl said. "We've given him the money. And we've said, get about the job (of finishing the fence)."
Last year, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) introduced H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation Security Act. The bill has been languishing in various committees since its introduction; maybe Chertoff's open contempt for the laws and people of the United States will inspire a couple of committee chairs to get off their asses.
Rep. Grijalva's press release on Chertoff's waivers of law here.
The Department of Homeland Security's press release here.
...Congratulations go out to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) on the House unanimously passing his H.R. 4847, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008.
The bill authorizes nearly $300 million in appropriations over a four year period for many things, including training for improved fighting of fires such as those from terrorism, natural disasters, and wildfires (Arizona has been known to have one or two of those, hasn't it?? ).
Mitchell's press release on the matter here.
CQPolitics' story on the vote here.
...Guess that now that people aren't blindly buying into the 'fear' component of their "fear and smear" campaign to retain control of the White House (and to perhap regain control of Congress), the Republicans have decided to minimize the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
A conservative Republican congressman says he supports helping victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but did not offer an apology for remarks he made while questioning the need for federal compensation.
During a joint hearing on Tuesday by two House Judiciary subcommittees considering legislation to extend benefits, [Rep. Darrell] Issa [R-CA] described the Sept. 11 attacks as "a fire that had no dirty bomb in it" and added: "It had no chemical munitions in it. It simply was an aircraft, residue of two aircraft and residue of the material used to build this building."
He questioned "why the firefighters who went there and everyone in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus, quite frankly, this being primarily a state consideration."
"Primarily a state consideration"???
So, in the highly unlikely event that Osama bin Laden is ever captured, does that statement mean that Congressman Issa believes the District Attorney for New York County has first dibs on him (for roughly 3000 counts of murder in Manhattan)??
...From the "Doesn't get along well with others" Department:
It's not enough for the Bush-led Department of Justice to ignore Congress, now it's ignoring the courts, too.
From the L.A. Times -
New federal sentencing guidelines designed to end the racially tinged disparity between prison sentences for powder and crack cocaine dealers went into effect a month ago, and so far more than 3,000 inmates have had their prison terms reduced.
Dozens have been released, including at least 15 in California, but many others who should have been released have not. Attorneys involved in the process blame bureaucratic delays as well as opposition from the Justice Department.
The problem isn't only with the Justice Department, either.
Also from the Times' story -
In Dallas, one judge has refused to allow federal defenders to represent crack offenders in his court, saying they have no right to counsel at this stage of the proceedings. That has left hundreds of inmates having to file jailhouse petitions to gain their freedom.
I suppose some of the crack offenders left hanging (so to speak) by the foot-dragging of the DOJ and the courts *could* appeal directly to George Bush for relief, but looking at the list of his most recent pardons, they shouldn't expect much help in from that direction.
Of the 15 pardons listed, 1 was for marijuana, one for cocaine, one for heroin, and one for distribution of an unnamed controlled substance that pre-dates crack; the others were non-narcotics-related offenses.
No crack offenders to be found.
Later!
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thank you Harry...
Earlier today, in spite of Republican tactics that reeked of hysteria, grandstanding, and attempts to baldly intimidate them, Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) and 212 other Democrats approved the House version of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.
The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'
Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.
They've earned it.
Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.
WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)
White House statement on today's vote here.
ACLU statement on today's vote here.
Later!
The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.
The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'
Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.
They've earned it.
Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.
WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)
White House statement on today's vote here.
ACLU statement on today's vote here.
Later!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Arizona earns another low rating when it comes to protecting children
This time, it's the state's Congressional delegation that has let children down.
The Children's Defense Fund Action Council has released its 2007 Congressional scorecard. The scoring was based on 10 key votes each in the House and Senate (the list of votes was slightly different for each chamber.)
Arizona's delegation ended up tied for 44th with Louisiana's.
Hey - at least we beat Nebraska, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
On the other hand, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi beat us, and that's not exactly something to brag about.
By comparison, my old home state of Massachusetts ranked 3rd, with an average score of 97%; the only negative marks were due to absences, not bad votes.
As could be expected, the Arizona delegation split along party lines -
In the House, Democrats Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva each scored 100%, Gabrielle Giffords 80%, and Harry Mitchell 60%.
On the Republican side, Rick Renzi scored 60%, Trent Franks and John Shadegg scored 10%, and the ever-reliable Jeff Flake earned a big ol' goose egg (he's like Mikey from the Life cereal commercial - he hates *everything.*)
It seems that John Shadegg's 'expertise' on health care doesn't extend to healthy children, only healthy corporate bottom lines. As for Trent Franks, apparently his concern for children stops once they are born.
As for Renzi's 60%, well, you knew that there had to be a real reason that a Republican U.S. Attorney pursued an indictment of a Republican Congressman - I mean, there was no way a Bush appointee would go after a Republican for simple extortion and fraud, right?
:))
And as for Harry Mitchell's 60%, I supposed he can take heart in the high-wattage company he's keeping - Nancy Pelosi was also at 60%, Joe Biden was at 50%, Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 70%.
Over in the Senate, Jon Kyl scored at 30% and John McCain earned a 10%.
Of course, given that McCain missed 8 of the 10 key votes, maybe his grade should be 'Incomplete.' However, according to the 2006 Scorecard, he made all of the 10 key votes that year, and scored a resounding
10%.
Come November, that's something that parents all over the state might want to think about before they cast a 'favorite son' vote in the general election.
Later!
The Children's Defense Fund Action Council has released its 2007 Congressional scorecard. The scoring was based on 10 key votes each in the House and Senate (the list of votes was slightly different for each chamber.)
Arizona's delegation ended up tied for 44th with Louisiana's.
Hey - at least we beat Nebraska, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
On the other hand, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi beat us, and that's not exactly something to brag about.
By comparison, my old home state of Massachusetts ranked 3rd, with an average score of 97%; the only negative marks were due to absences, not bad votes.
As could be expected, the Arizona delegation split along party lines -
In the House, Democrats Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva each scored 100%, Gabrielle Giffords 80%, and Harry Mitchell 60%.
On the Republican side, Rick Renzi scored 60%, Trent Franks and John Shadegg scored 10%, and the ever-reliable Jeff Flake earned a big ol' goose egg (he's like Mikey from the Life cereal commercial - he hates *everything.*)
It seems that John Shadegg's 'expertise' on health care doesn't extend to healthy children, only healthy corporate bottom lines. As for Trent Franks, apparently his concern for children stops once they are born.
As for Renzi's 60%, well, you knew that there had to be a real reason that a Republican U.S. Attorney pursued an indictment of a Republican Congressman - I mean, there was no way a Bush appointee would go after a Republican for simple extortion and fraud, right?
:))
And as for Harry Mitchell's 60%, I supposed he can take heart in the high-wattage company he's keeping - Nancy Pelosi was also at 60%, Joe Biden was at 50%, Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 70%.
Over in the Senate, Jon Kyl scored at 30% and John McCain earned a 10%.
Of course, given that McCain missed 8 of the 10 key votes, maybe his grade should be 'Incomplete.' However, according to the 2006 Scorecard, he made all of the 10 key votes that year, and scored a resounding
10%.
Come November, that's something that parents all over the state might want to think about before they cast a 'favorite son' vote in the general election.
Later!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Priorities Of House Republicans -
1. Retroactive telecom immunity.
2. Failing that, heavily armed communities.
Not a priority -
1. Public housing.
Today, the House debated H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the bill concerns a number of rules regulating public housing authority (PHA) management and PHA asset management.
The fun part was when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to amend the bill by substituting to become S. 2248, the FISA amendments bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans program.
That motion was determined to be out of order because the proposed amendment wasn't relevant to the underlying bill. Rep. Smith moved to appeal the chair's ruling to the whole House; the whole House voted to table the appeal by a vote of 218 - 195, with the Reps voting mostly along party lines. (AZ delegation: Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva - Yea; Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Flake, and Giffords - Nay)
After that, under the rules of the House, the Republicans could still make a motion to recommit, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) did so.
Her motion included instructions "inserting provisions that state that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her personal protection or for sport the possession of which is not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required, by existing law."
Further proceedings on that motion, as well as the underlying bill, were postponed (not sure why yet.)
Nice to see that even with a week off to think about the error of their ways, the House Republicans still place corporate interests and ideological purity above human interest.
Wonder who they're going to blame when they have their butts handed to them in November? Undocumented immigrants?
...Oh wait - undocumented immigrants don't vote.
It should be noted that after regular legislative business was completed that Trent Franks (R-AZ2) took to the floor of the House to talk about the significant issue of the day.
Which, given that it was Trent Franks speaking, of course that issue was abortion.
Later!
2. Failing that, heavily armed communities.
Not a priority -
1. Public housing.
Today, the House debated H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the bill concerns a number of rules regulating public housing authority (PHA) management and PHA asset management.
The fun part was when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to amend the bill by substituting to become S. 2248, the FISA amendments bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans program.
That motion was determined to be out of order because the proposed amendment wasn't relevant to the underlying bill. Rep. Smith moved to appeal the chair's ruling to the whole House; the whole House voted to table the appeal by a vote of 218 - 195, with the Reps voting mostly along party lines. (AZ delegation: Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva - Yea; Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Flake, and Giffords - Nay)
After that, under the rules of the House, the Republicans could still make a motion to recommit, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) did so.
Her motion included instructions "inserting provisions that state that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her personal protection or for sport the possession of which is not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required, by existing law."
Further proceedings on that motion, as well as the underlying bill, were postponed (not sure why yet.)
Nice to see that even with a week off to think about the error of their ways, the House Republicans still place corporate interests and ideological purity above human interest.
Wonder who they're going to blame when they have their butts handed to them in November? Undocumented immigrants?
...Oh wait - undocumented immigrants don't vote.
It should be noted that after regular legislative business was completed that Trent Franks (R-AZ2) took to the floor of the House to talk about the significant issue of the day.
Which, given that it was Trent Franks speaking, of course that issue was abortion.
Later!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Ahhh...Congress is back in session...
...and the House Republicans are already in mid-session form...
They're already hard at work safeguarding the interests of big business and blaming workers for everything.
Today, they were "fighting the good fight" for mine owners as House Democrats worked to address mine safety in the aftermath of the recent spate of deadly mine disasters, such as Crandall Canyon in Utah and Sago in West Virginia.
During consideration of H.R. 2768, the S-MINER Act (Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response), House Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R-CA), opposed every safety improvement as too onerous for mine owners and operators. In fact, the only 'safety improvement' that they supported (and supported strongly, at that) was an intensive drug testing requirement for mine workers.
Guess it's more fun to play "blame the victims" than it is to "govern responsibly."
Many of the Republican opponents of increased mine safety cited this Washington Post article from Sunday that chronicles a growing trend in West Virginia's mine country - painkiller addiction.
The Republicans so strongly favored increased drug testing they twice tried to wedge it into the bill, once in this amendment proposed by Joe Wilson (R-SC) (starting on page 2 of the .pdf) and in their standard 'motion to recommit with instructions', proposed by Mark Souder (R-IN).
The Wilson amendment also sought to water-down implementation of safety measures, substituting secrecy, studies and commissions for refuge chambers with emergency air supplies, flame-resistant conveyor belts, and transparency.
Note: The Wilson amendment failed by a vote of 188 - 229; the motion to recommit failed by a vote of 197 - 217, with the AZ delegation splitting along party lines for each vote.
In the end, the House passed the S-Miner bill by a vote of 214 - 199, with the AZ delegation again splitting along party lines.
As could be expected, the White House has threatened to veto the bill.
AP coverage here.
...I know that in this election year, the presidential campaigns are getting most of the attention from voters and the MSM (hey, even I think it's easier to focus on 10 or so candidates for 1 office than it is to focus on more than 900 candidates for the 468 House and Senate seats up for grab this year), we all need to remember that those seats are just as important as the Presidency, and those races are far more easily affected by local activists.
Whether it's for Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, Bob Lord, John Thrasher, or one of the Democrats looking to replace Rick Renzi (R-Mantech) in CD1, volunteer where you can, contribute where you can.
They're already hard at work safeguarding the interests of big business and blaming workers for everything.
Today, they were "fighting the good fight" for mine owners as House Democrats worked to address mine safety in the aftermath of the recent spate of deadly mine disasters, such as Crandall Canyon in Utah and Sago in West Virginia.
During consideration of H.R. 2768, the S-MINER Act (Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response), House Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R-CA), opposed every safety improvement as too onerous for mine owners and operators. In fact, the only 'safety improvement' that they supported (and supported strongly, at that) was an intensive drug testing requirement for mine workers.
Guess it's more fun to play "blame the victims" than it is to "govern responsibly."
Many of the Republican opponents of increased mine safety cited this Washington Post article from Sunday that chronicles a growing trend in West Virginia's mine country - painkiller addiction.
The Republicans so strongly favored increased drug testing they twice tried to wedge it into the bill, once in this amendment proposed by Joe Wilson (R-SC) (starting on page 2 of the .pdf) and in their standard 'motion to recommit with instructions', proposed by Mark Souder (R-IN).
The Wilson amendment also sought to water-down implementation of safety measures, substituting secrecy, studies and commissions for refuge chambers with emergency air supplies, flame-resistant conveyor belts, and transparency.
Note: The Wilson amendment failed by a vote of 188 - 229; the motion to recommit failed by a vote of 197 - 217, with the AZ delegation splitting along party lines for each vote.
In the end, the House passed the S-Miner bill by a vote of 214 - 199, with the AZ delegation again splitting along party lines.
As could be expected, the White House has threatened to veto the bill.
AP coverage here.
...I know that in this election year, the presidential campaigns are getting most of the attention from voters and the MSM (hey, even I think it's easier to focus on 10 or so candidates for 1 office than it is to focus on more than 900 candidates for the 468 House and Senate seats up for grab this year), we all need to remember that those seats are just as important as the Presidency, and those races are far more easily affected by local activists.
Whether it's for Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, Bob Lord, John Thrasher, or one of the Democrats looking to replace Rick Renzi (R-Mantech) in CD1, volunteer where you can, contribute where you can.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Harry Mitchell lays some smack on Tedski
I'm sure that Congressman Harry Mitchell had a certain Sonoran blogger (and New England Revs fan) in mind when he agreed to his latest bill cosponsorship in the House.
H. Res. 867 reads -
Yet. :))
H. Res. 867 reads -
Tedski can take heart in the fact that while there are 53 other Representatives who attached their names to this bill, including one other Arizonan, his own Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, has not signed onto H. Res. 867.RESOLUTION
Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup.
Whereas the Houston Dynamo soccer team won the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, defeating the New England Revolution by a score of 2-1 at RFK Stadium on November 18, 2007;
Whereas as the Houston Dynamo came back from a 1-0 halftime deficit to defeat the Revolution;
Whereas as Dwayne De Rosario, assisted on the tying goal to Joseph Ngwenya, scored the winning goal and was named the game's MVP;
Whereas as the Houston Dynamo were playing without Brian Ching, the MVP of last year's MLS Cup due to injury;
Whereas as the Houston Dynamo has won the Major League Soccer Cup for the second consecutive year;
Whereas as the Houston Dynamo is the first team to win back-to-back MLS Cups in 10 years;
Whereas as the Houston Dynamo have won the MLS Cup in their first 2 years of existence in Houston;
Whereas Houston Dynamo Coach Dominic Kinnear has guided the team to 26 wins, 20 draws, and 16 losses in his first 2 seasons in Houston; and
Whereas Houston Dynamo defender Eddie Robinson and midfielder Dwayne De Rosario were named to the 2007 MLS Best XI all-star team:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) commends the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 MLS Cup; and
(2) congratulates the team for back-to-back MLS Cup wins in their first 2 seasons in Houston.
Yet. :))
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)