I don't normally do this, but the denizens of AZ's Republican blogosphere went a little goofy on the AZ Republic yesterday, mostly keying on the Sunday edition's Political Insider column.
And for once, most of the criticism was unfair to the Republic.
...Over at Seeing Red AZ, they complained that the Insider column falsely described former state GOP communications director Tony Reinhard as currently "leading the Maricopa County GOP."
They complained that the writers of the Insider column had "waged an ink-driven coup, removing Maricopa County Chairman Tom Husband from his leadership position."
In their righteous indignation, they forgot one minor detail - Reinhard became *executive director* of the Maricopa County Republican Party in early June.
An "ED" job title sounds like "leader" to most people, folks.
...Over at Sonoran Alliance, they called the column a "cheap shot" at State Sen. Jack Harper (R - Surprise!) and gave Harper a forum to respond. In that response, Harper asserted that he was misquoted in the column where the authors wrote "Why don't you come visit me?" Harper crooned any time he saw a member of The Republic's Capitol Bureau. "Do I have to do something crazy again?" "
What Harper claims that have said to Amanda Crawford, allegedly for the sole purpose of making polite conversation, was that he and the other Senators [his EMPHASIS] "missed her in the Senate and she only seems to come over when “SOMETHING crazy” happens."
Ummm...ignoring for the moment Harper's wanton violations of Senate rules and decorum to railroad through a same-sex marriage ban referendum that earned him the ethics complaint that further earned him the mention in this week's Insider column, there are still these factors to consider -
- Harper's involvement in a scheme to shield Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas from professional sanctions for any of his unethical actions in office;
- Harper's use in May of high-handed tactics to suppress debate on the Senate floor to kill a certain-to-pass anti-texting-while-driving bill from State Rep. Steve Farley (tactics similar to those used during the consideration of the same-sex marriage ban; guess he was just warming up for the main event a month later :) );
...His bill to open up Arizona's presidential primaries to...Republicans. Under his failed plan, Republicans could have voted in any primary they chose; members of other parties could have only voted in their own primaries;
...His "guns in restaurants" bill;
...His refusal to hold a confirmation hearing to confirm Gen. David Rataczak as commander of the Arizona National Guard because he was miffed that Governor Janet Napolitano hadn't deployed more troops to the state's border with Mexico;
...His continuing efforts to blame U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the substandard conditions at the *AZ* veterans' home (here and here);
...His proposal to limit citizen-based ballot initiatives to those first considered by the legislature;
...I could go on all night posting dozens more citations like this, but I have to work in the morning, so here's the point -
Harper's response has no credibility because he is one of the major sources of crazy at the legislature in general and in the Senate in particular.
He doesn't add to his credibility by responding to a perceived slight, and Sonoran Alliance didn't do him any favors by giving him an outlet for his whining about Amanda Crawford and the Republic.
Later!
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Jack Harper - brazenly hypocritical or cluelessly ironic?
You know, I was going to write a couple of quips (succinct but witty ones, of course :) ) about the Phoenix New Times' piece on Russell Pearce's history of domestic violence. Turns out that in 1980, his wife filed for divorce, citing among other reasons, that Pearce has "...a violent temper and has from time to time hit and shoved his wife..." (courtesy the New Times' upload of the court documents).
I'm certain a crack that pondered the possibility that Pearce has sublimated his documented anger toward women into a hatred of Mexicans (more socially acceptable in LD18, that) was imminent, but it turns out that Jack Harper (helped along by Democratic senator Ken Cheuvront) is around to save Russell Pearce from some biting sarcasm (for now anyway :)) ).
Turns out that while the legislative session is over, it isn't *over.*
From the Arizona Republic -
Harper, a previous winner of (and permanent contender for) the annual Legislative Loon Award, bemoaned the complaint as "partisan," while ignoring the fact that it was his own partisan maneuvers on the last day of the Senate's session that precipitated the complaint.
I'd say that his pronouncement on his latest troubles, whether rooted in hypocrisy or simple cluelessness, gives him a leg up on another Legislative Loon award, but there's no guarantee that he will return to the next session of the lege - he's facing a strong opponent in the person of Robert Boehlke.
Anyway, the complaint will be ruled on by Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, who admonished some of his senate colleagues for their "loss of decorum" during the final moments of the legislative session.
It should be noted, however, that Tibshraeny's concern over his colleagues' antics wasn't so strong that he couldn't vote for the anti-same sex marriage measure that Harper was so intent on railroading through that late night/early morning.
In short, while there might be a faux reprimand discussed for appearances' sake, nothing significant will come of this. Even if Tibshraeny finds merit to the complaint, it would take a majority vote of the senate to issue a reprimand, and the senate isn't scheduled to meet until the new lege is seated in January.
Later!
I'm certain a crack that pondered the possibility that Pearce has sublimated his documented anger toward women into a hatred of Mexicans (more socially acceptable in LD18, that) was imminent, but it turns out that Jack Harper (helped along by Democratic senator Ken Cheuvront) is around to save Russell Pearce from some biting sarcasm (for now anyway :)) ).
Turns out that while the legislative session is over, it isn't *over.*
From the Arizona Republic -
An end-of-session maneuver that cut short a Democratic filibuster and paved the way for lawmakers to refer the same-sex marriage ban to the fall ballot is now the subject of a rare formal ethics complaint.
Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix has asked the Senate ethics committee to issue a formal reprimand against Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise. Cheuvront accuses Harper of conspiring with other Republican leaders to intentionally break the rules of the Senate by turning off microphones and allowing the Republican majority leader to make a motion in the middle of a debate between Democratic senators.
Harper, a previous winner of (and permanent contender for) the annual Legislative Loon Award, bemoaned the complaint as "partisan," while ignoring the fact that it was his own partisan maneuvers on the last day of the Senate's session that precipitated the complaint.
I'd say that his pronouncement on his latest troubles, whether rooted in hypocrisy or simple cluelessness, gives him a leg up on another Legislative Loon award, but there's no guarantee that he will return to the next session of the lege - he's facing a strong opponent in the person of Robert Boehlke.
Anyway, the complaint will be ruled on by Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, who admonished some of his senate colleagues for their "loss of decorum" during the final moments of the legislative session.
It should be noted, however, that Tibshraeny's concern over his colleagues' antics wasn't so strong that he couldn't vote for the anti-same sex marriage measure that Harper was so intent on railroading through that late night/early morning.
In short, while there might be a faux reprimand discussed for appearances' sake, nothing significant will come of this. Even if Tibshraeny finds merit to the complaint, it would take a majority vote of the senate to issue a reprimand, and the senate isn't scheduled to meet until the new lege is seated in January.
Later!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Thank you, Senate Republicans
This is the second, less gentle, smack talk post (I meant to do this over the weekend, but work sort of intruded... :) )
...In the waning hours of this year's legislative session, the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society caved in the Center for Arizona Policy and the other ideological bullies in their party when they voted to send a ban on same-sex marriage to November's ballot.
All sorts of legislative arm-twisting, shenanigans, and outright rule-breaking were used to bring the measure to the floor and force its passage and referral to the fall ballot.
Let's be clear on one thing - the measure is spiteful, petty, and vindictive and should be opposed by anyone with a moral center, a shred of humanity, and a soul.
Having said all that, there's a silver lining to Friday's debacle.
They've now thoroughly pissed off and motivated a voting bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.
The heretofore fairly well-behaved wingers in the lege, or at least heretofore ineffective (more on that point in a moment), hadn't done much harm this session.
Lots of preening and posturing could be seen, and bellowing and bloviatingcould be heard, but they never could quite muster the votes necessary to push their anti-everything agenda of ballot measures (doing an end-run around the Governor's veto pen).
Unlike, say, in 2006, when they placed 8 measures on that fall's ballot, most of which were of the anti-immigrant or anti-education. Note: Prop 107, the anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot that year, was placed there by initiative petition.
Guess it was easier this time around to get 16 Senators and 35 Representatives to sign on rather than go out and gather >230,000 signatures. Probably cheaper, too - they spent more than $1,000,000 in 2006.
Of course, that election in 2006 with the anti-same sex marriage question is the same election that brought some voices of sanity to the lege, leading to, or at least contributing to, the wingers' ineffectiveness in 2007 and 2008.
There just wasn't quite enough of them to work their hate with their usual glib, saccharin-tongued ease.
As evidenced by Friday's vote in the Senate, they still have some sway in the lege, but it's much less than in sessions past, and they had to work a *lot* harder to wield the influence they had remaining.
To sum up, they've motivated the Democratic Party base and a large bloc of independent voters in Arizona to a degree not seen since...
2006, the last really bad year for Republicans in AZ.
If Barack Obama actually beats McCain in AZ, or if the Dems take control of one or both chambers of the state lege, the Reps should look back at the ballot measure and their zeal and ruthlessness in railroading it through when parceling out the blame.
While I won't predict either of those outcomes at this time (still too much of an uphill battle for the lege), I do have one prediction - while the CD8 campaigns will play out over the summer and into the fall, for all practical purposes, Tim Bee's quest to unseat Gabrielle Giffords is over.
In CD8, only a relatively moderate Republican like Jim Kolbe has a chance of winning (not that Kolbe was actually a moderate) but with his behavior in railroading through SCR1042, Tim Bee has painted himelf as being an extremeist a la Randy Graf.
11 of the 16 Senators who voted for SCR1042 are facing general election challenges (a couple are termed out, one is facing only a primary challenge, or two are totally unchallenged in their quests for reelection). All of their challengers deserve support, but none more so than Robert Boehlke, the Democratic challenger to Jack Harper in LD4. Tim Bee may have been the conductor on this railroad, but Harper was the engineer driving the train.
Harper's a complete tool, brazen ideological thug and utter loon, which would be fine if he only impacted his own district (then it would a problem for the voters there, not the rest of us).
Unfortunately, he's hurting the entire state now, and deserves to be turned out of office.
What they did wasn't just petulant, it abominable. However, it may not be the end of the world - a measure that was put on the ballot to raise their own voter turnout may have an even stronger effect on the turnout of Democrats and Independents.
Pico at Wild Chihuahas has some great coverage on this issue.
Later!
...In the waning hours of this year's legislative session, the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society caved in the Center for Arizona Policy and the other ideological bullies in their party when they voted to send a ban on same-sex marriage to November's ballot.
All sorts of legislative arm-twisting, shenanigans, and outright rule-breaking were used to bring the measure to the floor and force its passage and referral to the fall ballot.
Let's be clear on one thing - the measure is spiteful, petty, and vindictive and should be opposed by anyone with a moral center, a shred of humanity, and a soul.
Having said all that, there's a silver lining to Friday's debacle.
They've now thoroughly pissed off and motivated a voting bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.
The heretofore fairly well-behaved wingers in the lege, or at least heretofore ineffective (more on that point in a moment), hadn't done much harm this session.
Lots of preening and posturing could be seen, and bellowing and bloviatingcould be heard, but they never could quite muster the votes necessary to push their anti-everything agenda of ballot measures (doing an end-run around the Governor's veto pen).
Unlike, say, in 2006, when they placed 8 measures on that fall's ballot, most of which were of the anti-immigrant or anti-education. Note: Prop 107, the anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot that year, was placed there by initiative petition.
Guess it was easier this time around to get 16 Senators and 35 Representatives to sign on rather than go out and gather >230,000 signatures. Probably cheaper, too - they spent more than $1,000,000 in 2006.
Of course, that election in 2006 with the anti-same sex marriage question is the same election that brought some voices of sanity to the lege, leading to, or at least contributing to, the wingers' ineffectiveness in 2007 and 2008.
There just wasn't quite enough of them to work their hate with their usual glib, saccharin-tongued ease.
As evidenced by Friday's vote in the Senate, they still have some sway in the lege, but it's much less than in sessions past, and they had to work a *lot* harder to wield the influence they had remaining.
To sum up, they've motivated the Democratic Party base and a large bloc of independent voters in Arizona to a degree not seen since...
2006, the last really bad year for Republicans in AZ.
If Barack Obama actually beats McCain in AZ, or if the Dems take control of one or both chambers of the state lege, the Reps should look back at the ballot measure and their zeal and ruthlessness in railroading it through when parceling out the blame.
While I won't predict either of those outcomes at this time (still too much of an uphill battle for the lege), I do have one prediction - while the CD8 campaigns will play out over the summer and into the fall, for all practical purposes, Tim Bee's quest to unseat Gabrielle Giffords is over.
In CD8, only a relatively moderate Republican like Jim Kolbe has a chance of winning (not that Kolbe was actually a moderate) but with his behavior in railroading through SCR1042, Tim Bee has painted himelf as being an extremeist a la Randy Graf.
11 of the 16 Senators who voted for SCR1042 are facing general election challenges (a couple are termed out, one is facing only a primary challenge, or two are totally unchallenged in their quests for reelection). All of their challengers deserve support, but none more so than Robert Boehlke, the Democratic challenger to Jack Harper in LD4. Tim Bee may have been the conductor on this railroad, but Harper was the engineer driving the train.
Harper's a complete tool, brazen ideological thug and utter loon, which would be fine if he only impacted his own district (then it would a problem for the voters there, not the rest of us).
Unfortunately, he's hurting the entire state now, and deserves to be turned out of office.
What they did wasn't just petulant, it abominable. However, it may not be the end of the world - a measure that was put on the ballot to raise their own voter turnout may have an even stronger effect on the turnout of Democrats and Independents.
Pico at Wild Chihuahas has some great coverage on this issue.
Later!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Free Passes and Primary Challenges - Interesting Races This Fall
Edit on 6/10 to correct Linda Lopez' status as a State Representative, not an incumbent State Senator...
In the following lege races, the candidates are unopposed in both the primary and the general elections (courtesy the AZ Secretary of State's website) -
Jake Flake, Republican incumbent, running for LD5 State Senate.
Carolyn Allen, Republican incumbent, running for LD8 State Senate.
Richard Miranda, Democratic incumbent, running for LD13 State Senate.
Debbie McCune Davis, Democratic incumbent, running for LD14 State Senate.
Ken Cheuvront, Democratic incumbent, running for LD15 State Senate.
Chuck Gray, Republican incumbent, running for LD19 State Senate.
Jay Tibshraeny, Republican incumbent, running for LD21 State Senate.
Paula Aboud, Democratic incumbent, running for LD28 State Senate.
Linda Lopez, Democratic State Rep, running for LD29 State Senate.
That makes for 9 out of the 30 seats, or 30% are going completely unchallenged.
Over in the House, less than 7% (4 out of 60) are getting a free pass -
Lucy Mason and Andy Tobin, Republican incumbents running for LD1 State Representative.
David Bradley and Steve Farley, Democratic incumbents running for LD28 State Representative.
A number of incumbents in both the House and Senate are termed out, and are either seeking a new office or are stepping away from public office this time around. However, almost all of the races that are completely uncontested involve incumbents; the other seats have actual contests, even the open seats.
Some of the interesting races (I'll leave the commentary on the southern AZ races to Tedski at R-Cubed - he knows the players waayyyy better than I do :) ) -
...In the LD5 race for the State Representative seats, Democratic State Rep. Jack Brown and moderate Republican State Rep. Bill Konopnicki face the presence of Russell Pearce-favorite Sylvia Tenney Allen in their race to retain their seats.
...In the LD10 State Rep race looks to be crowded - 4 Democrats (including incumbent Jackie Thrasher) are vying for the chance to face House Speaker Jim Weiers and former (and wants-to-be-again) seatmate Doug Quelland. Thrasher was a surprise winner in 2006, and she won't sneak up on anyone this time around, but the Rep registration advantage in that district is now even smaller than it was in 2006. This district is close enough to split again but could easily sweep either way.
LD10 bears close scrutiny (and lots of feet on the ground) this year.
...In the race for LD22 State Senate, Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor (R) is facing two (2!!) primary challengers - termed out State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth and Joe Bedgood. It's unusual for a reliable winger like Verschoor to face a challenge from another winger like Farnsworth, but to face two challengers? That is almost unheard-of.
Should be a bloody primary; unfortunately, no Democratic candidate filed to take advantage of a (hopefully!) weakened Republican in the general election.
...As has been covered before, the race for LD18 State Senate sees Russell Pearce, who mounted an abortive challenge to Congressman Jeff Flake, facing Flake's brother-in-law, Kevin Gibbons, in the Republican primary.
At least here, there is a Democratic candidate, Judah Nativio, poised to take advantage of the expected-to-be brutal Republican race.
...In something of a pleasant surprise, in the LD State Senate race, incumbent Republican Jack Harper is facing a primary challenge from John Zerby. Zerby is no rookie as he is a veteran of the Wickenburg City Council.
Hope it's bloody; Democrat Robert Boehlke is already in position to take advantage.
There are a few other races to watch; but it's getting late, so I'll cover those in another post.
Later!
In the following lege races, the candidates are unopposed in both the primary and the general elections (courtesy the AZ Secretary of State's website) -
Jake Flake, Republican incumbent, running for LD5 State Senate.
Carolyn Allen, Republican incumbent, running for LD8 State Senate.
Richard Miranda, Democratic incumbent, running for LD13 State Senate.
Debbie McCune Davis, Democratic incumbent, running for LD14 State Senate.
Ken Cheuvront, Democratic incumbent, running for LD15 State Senate.
Chuck Gray, Republican incumbent, running for LD19 State Senate.
Jay Tibshraeny, Republican incumbent, running for LD21 State Senate.
Paula Aboud, Democratic incumbent, running for LD28 State Senate.
Linda Lopez, Democratic State Rep, running for LD29 State Senate.
That makes for 9 out of the 30 seats, or 30% are going completely unchallenged.
Over in the House, less than 7% (4 out of 60) are getting a free pass -
Lucy Mason and Andy Tobin, Republican incumbents running for LD1 State Representative.
David Bradley and Steve Farley, Democratic incumbents running for LD28 State Representative.
A number of incumbents in both the House and Senate are termed out, and are either seeking a new office or are stepping away from public office this time around. However, almost all of the races that are completely uncontested involve incumbents; the other seats have actual contests, even the open seats.
Some of the interesting races (I'll leave the commentary on the southern AZ races to Tedski at R-Cubed - he knows the players waayyyy better than I do :) ) -
...In the LD5 race for the State Representative seats, Democratic State Rep. Jack Brown and moderate Republican State Rep. Bill Konopnicki face the presence of Russell Pearce-favorite Sylvia Tenney Allen in their race to retain their seats.
...In the LD10 State Rep race looks to be crowded - 4 Democrats (including incumbent Jackie Thrasher) are vying for the chance to face House Speaker Jim Weiers and former (and wants-to-be-again) seatmate Doug Quelland. Thrasher was a surprise winner in 2006, and she won't sneak up on anyone this time around, but the Rep registration advantage in that district is now even smaller than it was in 2006. This district is close enough to split again but could easily sweep either way.
LD10 bears close scrutiny (and lots of feet on the ground) this year.
...In the race for LD22 State Senate, Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor (R) is facing two (2!!) primary challengers - termed out State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth and Joe Bedgood. It's unusual for a reliable winger like Verschoor to face a challenge from another winger like Farnsworth, but to face two challengers? That is almost unheard-of.
Should be a bloody primary; unfortunately, no Democratic candidate filed to take advantage of a (hopefully!) weakened Republican in the general election.
...As has been covered before, the race for LD18 State Senate sees Russell Pearce, who mounted an abortive challenge to Congressman Jeff Flake, facing Flake's brother-in-law, Kevin Gibbons, in the Republican primary.
At least here, there is a Democratic candidate, Judah Nativio, poised to take advantage of the expected-to-be brutal Republican race.
...In something of a pleasant surprise, in the LD State Senate race, incumbent Republican Jack Harper is facing a primary challenge from John Zerby. Zerby is no rookie as he is a veteran of the Wickenburg City Council.
Hope it's bloody; Democrat Robert Boehlke is already in position to take advantage.
There are a few other races to watch; but it's getting late, so I'll cover those in another post.
Later!
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
An end run around professional ethics and standards: Andrew Thomas and his friends
...Sooooo....when Thomas loses in November, will the (self-appointed) Judicial Advisory Subcommittee of The Flat Earth Society, Arizona Chapter reverse it's position on the disciplinary powers of the state Bar Association? More importantly, will their health insurance cover the whiplash?
On Monday, 15 state legislators (including previous Legislative Loon award winners Sen. Jack Harper and Rep. Russell Pearce) released a letter that they had signed condemning the Arizona Bar Association's investigations into complaints about Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
They're upset that their fellow elected official could lose his office because of professional misconduct.
I was going to write a long, detailed, and profoundly perceptive post on this, but Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona beat me to it, so I get stuck making wiseass comments.
That's truly disappointing.
Really.
Trust me. :))
I wonder what they're more concerned with - preserving Andrew Thomas' future, or quashing the radical idea proposed by the bar association, that elected officials should be held to the same professional standards as their un-elected colleagues?
AZ Republic's Political Insider coverage here; PolitickerAZ coverage here.
Note: This isn't Pearce's first attempt to shield Thomas from his misconduct. In April, he proposed a "strike-everything" amendment to a bill that would have exempted public officials and employees from investigation by or sanctions from the state bar association or the State Supreme Court. Ultimately, the striker wasn't passed or even heard in committee as Pearce chose to not bring it forward because, to paraphrase, "the court will take care of the problem itself." (My post on the topic here)
Perhaps the best solution would be to make the issue a moot one -
Either Gerald Richard or Tim Nelson would make for a far superior public servant and prosecutor than Thomas.
Of course, so would I, and my only exposure to the Arizona legal system has been getting summonsed for jury duty a few times. (BTW: the candidate who promises free wi-fi in all court jury pool waiting areas in the county has the inside track on getting my vote. :)) )
Later!
On Monday, 15 state legislators (including previous Legislative Loon award winners Sen. Jack Harper and Rep. Russell Pearce) released a letter that they had signed condemning the Arizona Bar Association's investigations into complaints about Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
They're upset that their fellow elected official could lose his office because of professional misconduct.
I was going to write a long, detailed, and profoundly perceptive post on this, but Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona beat me to it, so I get stuck making wiseass comments.
That's truly disappointing.
Really.
Trust me. :))
I wonder what they're more concerned with - preserving Andrew Thomas' future, or quashing the radical idea proposed by the bar association, that elected officials should be held to the same professional standards as their un-elected colleagues?
AZ Republic's Political Insider coverage here; PolitickerAZ coverage here.
Note: This isn't Pearce's first attempt to shield Thomas from his misconduct. In April, he proposed a "strike-everything" amendment to a bill that would have exempted public officials and employees from investigation by or sanctions from the state bar association or the State Supreme Court. Ultimately, the striker wasn't passed or even heard in committee as Pearce chose to not bring it forward because, to paraphrase, "the court will take care of the problem itself." (My post on the topic here)
Perhaps the best solution would be to make the issue a moot one -
Either Gerald Richard or Tim Nelson would make for a far superior public servant and prosecutor than Thomas.
Of course, so would I, and my only exposure to the Arizona legal system has been getting summonsed for jury duty a few times. (BTW: the candidate who promises free wi-fi in all court jury pool waiting areas in the county has the inside track on getting my vote. :)) )
Later!
Saturday, February 09, 2008
God, I love typos
Of course, if it isn't a typo, I'll be changing my registration to 'Independent.'
From the Arizona Clean Elections Commission list of 2008 Participating Candidates (emphasis added)-
I just knew that there was a non-climatalogical reason that metro Phoenix was so cold on Monday (we even had a hail storm here in Scottsdale) -
Hell froze over!
LOL
Later!
From the Arizona Clean Elections Commission list of 2008 Participating Candidates (emphasis added)-
Office/District Last First Party
Senate 04 Harper Jack Dem
I just knew that there was a non-climatalogical reason that metro Phoenix was so cold on Monday (we even had a hail storm here in Scottsdale) -
Hell froze over!
LOL
Later!
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Ten and ten
Sunday, the AZ Republic ran a story highlighting 10 of the more interesting bills before the Arizona Legislature. It was a decent enough story, if a little light on real substance or usable information.
The story, while it did have its good points, was also a very shallow one. 10 bills out of over 1100 filed? That's less than 1%, and the brief blurbs that the Rep wrote about the bills didn't even include basic info such as the name of the sponsor or whether or not the bill has been assigned to a committee.
So, with that serving as inspiration, here's my list of ten and ten - ten bad bills to watch, and ten good bills to watch. These aren't the only 10 bad bills, or the only 10 good bills; there's plenty more of both.
Note: in the interests of minimizing repetitiveness, no anti-immigrant or "let's balance the budget by cutting revenue" bills will be included. Those were covered pretty well in the Legislative Loon p0sts.
Ten bad bills -
...HB2096, a bill to create parental educational choice grants. Introduced by Reps. Biggs, Burges, and Murphy, and Sens. Gorman, Harper and Johnson.
After over 200 words rationalizing the need for such grants, and proclaiming that the bill's purposes are secular, the bill goes on to create a program that awards grants in the amounts of $3500 and $4500 per year payable to the "custodians" of pupils enrolled at private schools.
Undermining public education is bad enough to warrant inclusion on this list, but the language in the bill that states that schools "shall not be required to alter its creed, practices or curriculum in order to redeem grants issued pursuant to this article" is a very thinly-veiled way to funnel public funds to religious schools, notwithstanding the "secular" proclamation a the beginning of the bill.
...HB2477, a bill relating to employees of the state treasurer's office. Sponsored by Rep. Adams. Would authorize the state treasurer (currently Dean Martin) to randomly drug test employees and prospective employees, and to periodically snoop into employees' credit reports.
If Mr. Martin and his water-carrier Rep. Adams believe that there is a drug use problem in the treasurer's office, there are provisions in existing state law that would allow for drug testing in departments where there is evidence of a problem. Even if those provisions don't apply to the treasurer's office, why not change the law so that those provisions *do* apply?
Unless, of course, the underlying purpose of the program would be to control and intimidate office employees, some of whom may have spoken up over the crimes committed by previous treasurer David Petersen, who resigned in disgrace.
Something tells me that the ethically-challenged Martin wants to discourage whistle-blowers with this.
...SB1054, a bill relating to the state treasurer and independent legal counsel. Introduced by Sen. Chuck Gray. Would allow the State Treasurer's office to bypass the Attorney General and contract for outside legal counsel. The bill also exempts such contracts from the state's procurement code with its attendent oversights.
Related: SB1097, a bill from Sen. Burns to exempt the State Treasurer's office from the Government Information Technology Agency's (GITA) requirements.
Can you say "building an independent fiefdom"?
...HB2678, a bill related to welfare recipients and applicants, and drug testing. Sponsored or cosponsored by a cast of thousands (actually, a cast of 31, 30 of whom are Republicans.) Would mandate drug testing of all applicants and recipients of public assistance.
...HB2713, a bill relating to students' expression of religion. Sponsored by Reps. Clark and Anderson. Would bar a school from discriminating against a student or group of students on the basis of religion. The bill includes interesting phrasing - "If an assignment requires a student's viewpoint to be expressed in coursework, artwork or other written or oral assignments, A public educational institution shall not penalize or reward a student on the basis of religious content or a religious viewpoint." I'm not sure of this (I'm most definitely not a lawyer), but I think this might really mess up grading in science classes.
This bill may be related to conflicts like this one in the Deer Valley Unified School District, chronicled in the AZ Republic.
...HCR2041, an amendment to the state constitution barring preferential treatment based on "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Sponsored by Reps. Pearce, Barnes, Mason, Murphy, and Nelson and Senators Harper and Johnson. Basically, this is Ward Connerly's scheme to end affirmative action policies.
...SB1064, a bill relating to presidential preference elections. Sponsored by Sens. Harper and Waring. This is the one that opens up presidential primaries for everyone but Democrats. I've written about this one before.
SB1332, a bill relating to DNA testing. Sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray. The Senator was all people who are arrested to submit to DNA testing. Compliance would be a condition of bail or "own recognizance" release - failure to comply would result in revocation of bail.
Just think - if this was in force when Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas tried to intimidate the New Times into silence, not only would the two journalists they arrested have had to submit DNA samples, it would now be incumbent on them to petition a court to have their DNA info removed from the state's database (as opposed to Arpaio and Thomas having to justify keeping it.)
If the esteemed members of the lege think bills like this one and the 'drug tests for welfare' one from above are such great ideas that would benefit the public, why don't they ever propose bills mandating drug and DNA testing for elected officials?
...SB1400, a bill relating to 'gun-free' zones. Sponsored by Sen. Johnson and Reps. Barnes, Burges, and Pearce. The State or "any agency or political subdivision of this state or any person, organization or entity that establishes a gun-free zone" would be held liable for damages if someone is injured or otherwise hurt as a result of criminal conduct in that 'gun-free' zone and that possession of a gun would have helped the victim defend him/herself.
Brought to you by some of the same crew responsible for the 'guns in schools' bill (and the 'guns in bars' bill before it.)
...SB1493, a bill related to early ballots and voter identification. Sponsored by Sens. Gorman and Blendu and Reps. Clark and Pearce. Would mandate that when returning an early ballot, voters must include "a legible photocopy of identification."
How does a photocopy prove anything? Also, what about the expense incurred by voters, as most folks don't have copy machines at home?
Ten good bills...
...HB2114, a bill relating to unattended children in motor vehicles. Introduced by Rep. McClure. Makes the act of leaving a child unattended in a vehicle (subject to a few criteria, such as age) a Class 3 misdemeanor. Repeat offenses are Class 2 misdemeanors.
...HB2141, a bill relating to the disclosure of water supply status during the sale of residential property. Introduced by Rep. Ableser. The bill requires that licensed real estate brokers to "notice of the water supply status of that property as designated by the director of water resources." Related: HB2142, which provides for similar requirements for general sellers (i.e. - non-licensed types.)
...HB2145, a bill related to health insurance and mental health coverage parity. Sponsored by Rep. Ableser, Chabin, Farley, Desimone, and Chad Campbell. Requires that health insurance providers not place greater limitations on mental health services and coverage than they do on physical health services and coverage.
...HB2217, a bill relating to yearly limitations on tuition and fee increases at the state's public universities. Introduced by Reps. Ableser and Schapira. Mandates that any approved fee and tuition hikes not take effect until the academic year following approval.
...HB2293, a bill relating to the sentence imposed on juveniles convicted of first-degree murder. Introduced by Rep. Sinema. Bars imposition of capital punishment upon juveniles. Capital punishment should be abandoned; this bill would be a good first step.
...HB2396, a bill relating to text messaging while driving. Introduced by Reps. Farley, Pancrazi, and Nelson, and Sens. Aboud and Aguirre. Bans the sending or receiving of text messages while operating a motor vehicle. Related: HB2397, banning the use of cell phones while driving, except with a hands-free device and HB2398, banning the use of cell phones while driving, specific to Class G-licensed drivers (aka - under 18 years old).
...HB2651, a bill relating to independent voters and presidential preference primary elections. Introduced by Reps. DeSimone, Farley, Thrasher and Sen. Rios. Would allow independent voters to cast a ballot in the presidential primary of their choice. This is the bill that Sen. Harper should have written, instead of SB1064.
...SB1046, a bill relating to the enactment date of the state's education budget. Sponsored by Sen. Pesquiera. Would mandate that the lege pass the following fiscal year budget for the Arizona Department of Education by April 15th.
So simple it's brilliant. Now to get them to pass the rest of the budget before it hits 100 in Phoenix...
...SB1247, a bill relating to employer communications regarding religion or politics. Sponsored by Sen. Burton-Cahill. Bars an employer from compelling an employee to participate in an activity or communication that has the "primary purpose of communicating the employer's opinion about religious or political matters." The bill has appropriate exemptions for activities mandated by law and also for religious, political, and educational organizations.
This is how a religious liberty bill *should* be written.
SB1010, a bill relating a cell phone users' bill of rights. Sponsored by Sen. Waring. This one was a good idea when Waring introduced it in November; it's a good idea now.
The story, while it did have its good points, was also a very shallow one. 10 bills out of over 1100 filed? That's less than 1%, and the brief blurbs that the Rep wrote about the bills didn't even include basic info such as the name of the sponsor or whether or not the bill has been assigned to a committee.
So, with that serving as inspiration, here's my list of ten and ten - ten bad bills to watch, and ten good bills to watch. These aren't the only 10 bad bills, or the only 10 good bills; there's plenty more of both.
Note: in the interests of minimizing repetitiveness, no anti-immigrant or "let's balance the budget by cutting revenue" bills will be included. Those were covered pretty well in the Legislative Loon p0sts.
Ten bad bills -
...HB2096, a bill to create parental educational choice grants. Introduced by Reps. Biggs, Burges, and Murphy, and Sens. Gorman, Harper and Johnson.
After over 200 words rationalizing the need for such grants, and proclaiming that the bill's purposes are secular, the bill goes on to create a program that awards grants in the amounts of $3500 and $4500 per year payable to the "custodians" of pupils enrolled at private schools.
Undermining public education is bad enough to warrant inclusion on this list, but the language in the bill that states that schools "shall not be required to alter its creed, practices or curriculum in order to redeem grants issued pursuant to this article" is a very thinly-veiled way to funnel public funds to religious schools, notwithstanding the "secular" proclamation a the beginning of the bill.
...HB2477, a bill relating to employees of the state treasurer's office. Sponsored by Rep. Adams. Would authorize the state treasurer (currently Dean Martin) to randomly drug test employees and prospective employees, and to periodically snoop into employees' credit reports.
If Mr. Martin and his water-carrier Rep. Adams believe that there is a drug use problem in the treasurer's office, there are provisions in existing state law that would allow for drug testing in departments where there is evidence of a problem. Even if those provisions don't apply to the treasurer's office, why not change the law so that those provisions *do* apply?
Unless, of course, the underlying purpose of the program would be to control and intimidate office employees, some of whom may have spoken up over the crimes committed by previous treasurer David Petersen, who resigned in disgrace.
Something tells me that the ethically-challenged Martin wants to discourage whistle-blowers with this.
...SB1054, a bill relating to the state treasurer and independent legal counsel. Introduced by Sen. Chuck Gray. Would allow the State Treasurer's office to bypass the Attorney General and contract for outside legal counsel. The bill also exempts such contracts from the state's procurement code with its attendent oversights.
Related: SB1097, a bill from Sen. Burns to exempt the State Treasurer's office from the Government Information Technology Agency's (GITA) requirements.
Can you say "building an independent fiefdom"?
...HB2678, a bill related to welfare recipients and applicants, and drug testing. Sponsored or cosponsored by a cast of thousands (actually, a cast of 31, 30 of whom are Republicans.) Would mandate drug testing of all applicants and recipients of public assistance.
...HB2713, a bill relating to students' expression of religion. Sponsored by Reps. Clark and Anderson. Would bar a school from discriminating against a student or group of students on the basis of religion. The bill includes interesting phrasing - "If an assignment requires a student's viewpoint to be expressed in coursework, artwork or other written or oral assignments, A public educational institution shall not penalize or reward a student on the basis of religious content or a religious viewpoint." I'm not sure of this (I'm most definitely not a lawyer), but I think this might really mess up grading in science classes.
This bill may be related to conflicts like this one in the Deer Valley Unified School District, chronicled in the AZ Republic.
...HCR2041, an amendment to the state constitution barring preferential treatment based on "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Sponsored by Reps. Pearce, Barnes, Mason, Murphy, and Nelson and Senators Harper and Johnson. Basically, this is Ward Connerly's scheme to end affirmative action policies.
...SB1064, a bill relating to presidential preference elections. Sponsored by Sens. Harper and Waring. This is the one that opens up presidential primaries for everyone but Democrats. I've written about this one before.
SB1332, a bill relating to DNA testing. Sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray. The Senator was all people who are arrested to submit to DNA testing. Compliance would be a condition of bail or "own recognizance" release - failure to comply would result in revocation of bail.
Just think - if this was in force when Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas tried to intimidate the New Times into silence, not only would the two journalists they arrested have had to submit DNA samples, it would now be incumbent on them to petition a court to have their DNA info removed from the state's database (as opposed to Arpaio and Thomas having to justify keeping it.)
If the esteemed members of the lege think bills like this one and the 'drug tests for welfare' one from above are such great ideas that would benefit the public, why don't they ever propose bills mandating drug and DNA testing for elected officials?
...SB1400, a bill relating to 'gun-free' zones. Sponsored by Sen. Johnson and Reps. Barnes, Burges, and Pearce. The State or "any agency or political subdivision of this state or any person, organization or entity that establishes a gun-free zone" would be held liable for damages if someone is injured or otherwise hurt as a result of criminal conduct in that 'gun-free' zone and that possession of a gun would have helped the victim defend him/herself.
Brought to you by some of the same crew responsible for the 'guns in schools' bill (and the 'guns in bars' bill before it.)
...SB1493, a bill related to early ballots and voter identification. Sponsored by Sens. Gorman and Blendu and Reps. Clark and Pearce. Would mandate that when returning an early ballot, voters must include "a legible photocopy of identification."
How does a photocopy prove anything? Also, what about the expense incurred by voters, as most folks don't have copy machines at home?
Ten good bills...
...HB2114, a bill relating to unattended children in motor vehicles. Introduced by Rep. McClure. Makes the act of leaving a child unattended in a vehicle (subject to a few criteria, such as age) a Class 3 misdemeanor. Repeat offenses are Class 2 misdemeanors.
...HB2141, a bill relating to the disclosure of water supply status during the sale of residential property. Introduced by Rep. Ableser. The bill requires that licensed real estate brokers to "notice of the water supply status of that property as designated by the director of water resources." Related: HB2142, which provides for similar requirements for general sellers (i.e. - non-licensed types.)
...HB2145, a bill related to health insurance and mental health coverage parity. Sponsored by Rep. Ableser, Chabin, Farley, Desimone, and Chad Campbell. Requires that health insurance providers not place greater limitations on mental health services and coverage than they do on physical health services and coverage.
...HB2217, a bill relating to yearly limitations on tuition and fee increases at the state's public universities. Introduced by Reps. Ableser and Schapira. Mandates that any approved fee and tuition hikes not take effect until the academic year following approval.
...HB2293, a bill relating to the sentence imposed on juveniles convicted of first-degree murder. Introduced by Rep. Sinema. Bars imposition of capital punishment upon juveniles. Capital punishment should be abandoned; this bill would be a good first step.
...HB2396, a bill relating to text messaging while driving. Introduced by Reps. Farley, Pancrazi, and Nelson, and Sens. Aboud and Aguirre. Bans the sending or receiving of text messages while operating a motor vehicle. Related: HB2397, banning the use of cell phones while driving, except with a hands-free device and HB2398, banning the use of cell phones while driving, specific to Class G-licensed drivers (aka - under 18 years old).
...HB2651, a bill relating to independent voters and presidential preference primary elections. Introduced by Reps. DeSimone, Farley, Thrasher and Sen. Rios. Would allow independent voters to cast a ballot in the presidential primary of their choice. This is the bill that Sen. Harper should have written, instead of SB1064.
...SB1046, a bill relating to the enactment date of the state's education budget. Sponsored by Sen. Pesquiera. Would mandate that the lege pass the following fiscal year budget for the Arizona Department of Education by April 15th.
So simple it's brilliant. Now to get them to pass the rest of the budget before it hits 100 in Phoenix...
...SB1247, a bill relating to employer communications regarding religion or politics. Sponsored by Sen. Burton-Cahill. Bars an employer from compelling an employee to participate in an activity or communication that has the "primary purpose of communicating the employer's opinion about religious or political matters." The bill has appropriate exemptions for activities mandated by law and also for religious, political, and educational organizations.
This is how a religious liberty bill *should* be written.
SB1010, a bill relating a cell phone users' bill of rights. Sponsored by Sen. Waring. This one was a good idea when Waring introduced it in November; it's a good idea now.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
And the winner is...
Jack Harper, 2nd Runner Up for the 2008 Legislative Loon Award, made a late push today for a recount, with his promise/threat to inflict his brand of lunacy on the entire state, not just LD4.
From the AZ Republic's Political Insider -
He gets points for a valiant effort, but this isn't Florida circa 2000 or Ohio circa 2004 - all votes count, and they only count once. He's still 2nd Runner Up.
Nope, the decision the judges have reached is final...
Your 2008 Legislative Loon is...
State Representative Russell Pearce!!
OK, so that's not really a surprise; he's always a prime contender for this award. In last year's competition, he fell short because "[h]is brand of lunacy seems to be singularly focused."
He seems to have taken that observation to heart.
Not only does he have his usual slew of immigrant-bashing bills (11 and counting), he's expanded his focus, spitting his venom on the state budget, public safety, public universities, schools, municipalities and the state's voters themselves.
Some of the highlights -
Sponsored HB2220, a permanent repeal of the state equalization property tax. That's a quarter billion dollar hit to school funding annually (legislative fiscal note here)...
...Sponsored HB2339, a bill to create a voluntary tax fund to balance the state's budget...
...Cosponsored HB2603, a bill to bar the use of photo-enforcement generated speeding tickets as a basis for MVD suspending a driver's license or as a basis for an insurance company to raise premiums or withdraw coverage from a driver...
...Sponsored HB2637, a bill to bar municipalities from imposing a sales tax (or something similar) on a laundry list of business activities and services while cosponsoring HB2641, a bill that would redirect some state-shared revenues from municipalities to property owners who live in unincorporated areas. So, one one hand he is reducing the amount of money that cities and towns receive from the state while on the other hand he wants to restrict their ability to make up the difference.
Note: this bill refers to A.R.S section 43-1072.02, but I couldn't find that particular section. There is a section 43-1072.01, but not a section .02. I'm not sure if it's a mistake in drafting the bill or a failure in my research abilities.
...Sponsored HB2678, a bill to require drug testing of all welfare recipients and applicants for welfare...
...Sponsored HCR2019, an amendment to the state constitution to bar legislators from holding a position on a local school board. The most interesting part about this one is that a brief search of legislative bios showed that one of the people that would be affected by this is Rep. Rich Crandall (R-LD19), one of Pearce's fellow Mesa Republicans.
...Sponsored HCR2044, an amendment to the state constitution to allow the lege to ignore voter-approved limitations on legislative appropriations, if the lege certifies in writing that it needs to do so in order to avoid a budget deficit.
...Sponsored HCR2049, an amendment to the state constitution to create a crime victims restitution fund (sounds good, right? Hang on...) by diverting monies awarded as punitive damages awarded for death or injury.
The victim to whom the punitive damages were initially awarded would then receive not the amount awarded, but only the amount his/her attorney spent on punitive damages research, plus 10 percent.
...Cosponsored SCM1002, a Senate Memorial (aka - letter to the U.S. Congress) supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ending the direct election of U.S. Senators by the voters of the various states and reinstituting the election of U.S. Senators by the legislatures of the various states.
And then, of course, there is his crowning achievement in legislative lunacy -
SB1214, the now-infamous bill to allow concealed weapons on school campuses.
Overall, he has sponsored or cosponsored at least 8 measures that would limit or reduce state revenues during a legislative session where he'll be helping to deal with a billion dollar budget deficit.
...So why is he the chair of the House Appropriations Committee?
Besides his legislative proposals, he still spouts off on a regular basis, and not he doesn't limit he pronouncements to only the subject of immigrants. He's spread his rhetorical wings.
For example, at the same January 23 meeting of the Joint Appropriations committee cited in Harper/2nd Runner Up post, Pearce advocated that, instead of funding institutions of higher education, the state should just give out vouchers that students could use wherever they chose to. (Check at approximately the 1:57:00 mark of the longer January 23 Joint Appropriations meeting on this page.)
So, for leaving his single-minded obsession behind, for expanding his bile-spreading efforts to include poor people, voters, students, fellow Republicans, higher education in general, municipalities' financial stability, and more, State Representative Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) is the Arizona Legislature's
2008 Legislative Loon.
Addendum: There were a couple of Pearce's bill that looked like they might be bad news, but I'm not sure what they really do. He sponsored SB1139, a bill to change some of the rules for the state treasurer, including one that allows him to charge higher administrative fees in the various investment pools overseen by the state treasurer. Also, he sponsored HB2600, a bill that requires the state to purchase performance management software that meets very specific criteria. I don't know if this is a good bill or something that is geared to direct a lucrative state contract to a particular software vendor.
Have a good night...
From the AZ Republic's Political Insider -
Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, was working on pumping up a crowd of loyal Mike Huckabee supporters (like maybe 20) in the state capitol courtyard this afternoon. And, you know, when Mr. Harper has a mic in his hand...you've just got to pause to listen.
{snip}
"I will run for a statewide seat in 2010," Harper announced, adding later that he believes "there is no personal sacrifice too big to stand for your beliefs."
Harper can't officially announce his campaign for an office unless he is prepared to resign from the senate. But he told Insider after his announcement that the positions would either relate to his concerns about election integrity (Translation: running for Secretary of State) or how he's not a big fan of Sen. McCain (Translation: running for U.S. Senate.)
He gets points for a valiant effort, but this isn't Florida circa 2000 or Ohio circa 2004 - all votes count, and they only count once. He's still 2nd Runner Up.
Nope, the decision the judges have reached is final...
Your 2008 Legislative Loon is...
State Representative Russell Pearce!!
OK, so that's not really a surprise; he's always a prime contender for this award. In last year's competition, he fell short because "[h]is brand of lunacy seems to be singularly focused."
He seems to have taken that observation to heart.
Not only does he have his usual slew of immigrant-bashing bills (11 and counting), he's expanded his focus, spitting his venom on the state budget, public safety, public universities, schools, municipalities and the state's voters themselves.
Some of the highlights -
Sponsored HB2220, a permanent repeal of the state equalization property tax. That's a quarter billion dollar hit to school funding annually (legislative fiscal note here)...
...Sponsored HB2339, a bill to create a voluntary tax fund to balance the state's budget...
...Cosponsored HB2603, a bill to bar the use of photo-enforcement generated speeding tickets as a basis for MVD suspending a driver's license or as a basis for an insurance company to raise premiums or withdraw coverage from a driver...
...Sponsored HB2637, a bill to bar municipalities from imposing a sales tax (or something similar) on a laundry list of business activities and services while cosponsoring HB2641, a bill that would redirect some state-shared revenues from municipalities to property owners who live in unincorporated areas. So, one one hand he is reducing the amount of money that cities and towns receive from the state while on the other hand he wants to restrict their ability to make up the difference.
Note: this bill refers to A.R.S section 43-1072.02, but I couldn't find that particular section. There is a section 43-1072.01, but not a section .02. I'm not sure if it's a mistake in drafting the bill or a failure in my research abilities.
...Sponsored HB2678, a bill to require drug testing of all welfare recipients and applicants for welfare...
...Sponsored HCR2019, an amendment to the state constitution to bar legislators from holding a position on a local school board. The most interesting part about this one is that a brief search of legislative bios showed that one of the people that would be affected by this is Rep. Rich Crandall (R-LD19), one of Pearce's fellow Mesa Republicans.
...Sponsored HCR2044, an amendment to the state constitution to allow the lege to ignore voter-approved limitations on legislative appropriations, if the lege certifies in writing that it needs to do so in order to avoid a budget deficit.
...Sponsored HCR2049, an amendment to the state constitution to create a crime victims restitution fund (sounds good, right? Hang on...) by diverting monies awarded as punitive damages awarded for death or injury.
The victim to whom the punitive damages were initially awarded would then receive not the amount awarded, but only the amount his/her attorney spent on punitive damages research, plus 10 percent.
...Cosponsored SCM1002, a Senate Memorial (aka - letter to the U.S. Congress) supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ending the direct election of U.S. Senators by the voters of the various states and reinstituting the election of U.S. Senators by the legislatures of the various states.
And then, of course, there is his crowning achievement in legislative lunacy -
SB1214, the now-infamous bill to allow concealed weapons on school campuses.
Overall, he has sponsored or cosponsored at least 8 measures that would limit or reduce state revenues during a legislative session where he'll be helping to deal with a billion dollar budget deficit.
...So why is he the chair of the House Appropriations Committee?
Besides his legislative proposals, he still spouts off on a regular basis, and not he doesn't limit he pronouncements to only the subject of immigrants. He's spread his rhetorical wings.
For example, at the same January 23 meeting of the Joint Appropriations committee cited in Harper/2nd Runner Up post, Pearce advocated that, instead of funding institutions of higher education, the state should just give out vouchers that students could use wherever they chose to. (Check at approximately the 1:57:00 mark of the longer January 23 Joint Appropriations meeting on this page.)
So, for leaving his single-minded obsession behind, for expanding his bile-spreading efforts to include poor people, voters, students, fellow Republicans, higher education in general, municipalities' financial stability, and more, State Representative Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) is the Arizona Legislature's
2008 Legislative Loon.
Addendum: There were a couple of Pearce's bill that looked like they might be bad news, but I'm not sure what they really do. He sponsored SB1139, a bill to change some of the rules for the state treasurer, including one that allows him to charge higher administrative fees in the various investment pools overseen by the state treasurer. Also, he sponsored HB2600, a bill that requires the state to purchase performance management software that meets very specific criteria. I don't know if this is a good bill or something that is geared to direct a lucrative state contract to a particular software vendor.
Have a good night...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The nominations are in...
With the WGA still on strike, this awards season has been something of a bust, but that all changes tonight... :)
It's a new year, and a new session of the legislature, and it's time to announce the finalists in the 2008 Legislative Loon award.
This year's competition has a number of contenders for the top spot, but the finalists came down to three names familiar to readers of this blog.
This is the first of a series of four posts - one for each finalist, detailing their qualifications for this year's award, followed by a fourth naming the winner. The winner will be announced next week.
On to the finalists...
State Senator Jack Harper(R-LD4), the defending champion, made a strong case to retain his title, sponsoring or cosponsoring at least 10 anti-immigrant bills, three anti-abortion measures, and a offering a number of bills and utterings of the 'unrepentant wing nut' variety.
Some of the highlights of his entries in the category -
...the previously discussed SB1064, a proposal to open up Arizona's presidential primaries - for everyone except Democrats...
...a slightly watered-down version of the infamous "guns in bars" bill. His SB1132 would allow gun owners to carry their weapons in a restaurant as long as the proprietor of the establishment specifically posted that such was allowed. (note: Believe it or not, I could actually support this bill except for the fact that the posting required under the language of this bill doesn't actually clearly state that guns are permitted. Yes, that means that patrons that aren't part of the gun culture wouldn't know that they were around people who were mixing booze and guns. An article on the bill by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the Sierra Vista Herald is here.)
...his refusal to hold re-confirmation hearings for the commander of the Arizona National Guard, Gen. David Rataczak, because he doesn't like the fact that Governor Napolitano hasn't mobilized the National Guard to patrol the border with Mexico. (EV Trib editorial here)
...his sponsorship of seven bills designed to reduce state or local revenues (i.e. - SB1002, end equalization tax for education; SB1138, bar local development fees to pay for schools in newly'built areas) or increase fiscal irresponsibility (HCR2004, creative use of federal money that isn't subject to specific encumberances).
[And all you CD8 types should remember that Tim Bee is the one who put Harper on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Just something to think about when Bee tries to portray himself as a "moderate Republican" during his campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in November.]
...the reintroduction of a bill to create a state-sponsored and funded anti-immigrant vigilante force...errr..."homeland security force" (SCR1007).
...during a meeting of the Joint Appropriations Committee on January 23rd, he grilled ASU Michael Crow over university courses that "challenge the social norms." He objects to courses that discuss subjects, such as sexuality, that are "deviant from from the majority" and wants "assurance that courses that challenge the social norms will be eliminated in light of budget issues." (The lege's video archive page is here; select the longer January 23, 2008 meeting. Harper's part starts at around the 1:21:00 mark.)
Yes, in a period when the state is facing a budget shortfall in the vicinity a billion dollars, and he's concerned with a couple of individual class offerings that have a single class section. He's actually interested in turning the state universities into higher-ed versions of vocational high schools, not institutions of higher learning -
He wants his "tax money going to train someone for a career not going to push someone's social agenda."
No UFO sightings here, but Sen. Harper offers a well-rounded resume. He's petty, unprofessional, reactionary, and bigoted.
He's made a very strong statement in his campaign to retain the title.
Next up: State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8).
Later!
It's a new year, and a new session of the legislature, and it's time to announce the finalists in the 2008 Legislative Loon award.
This year's competition has a number of contenders for the top spot, but the finalists came down to three names familiar to readers of this blog.
This is the first of a series of four posts - one for each finalist, detailing their qualifications for this year's award, followed by a fourth naming the winner. The winner will be announced next week.
On to the finalists...
State Senator Jack Harper(R-LD4), the defending champion, made a strong case to retain his title, sponsoring or cosponsoring at least 10 anti-immigrant bills, three anti-abortion measures, and a offering a number of bills and utterings of the 'unrepentant wing nut' variety.
Some of the highlights of his entries in the category -
...the previously discussed SB1064, a proposal to open up Arizona's presidential primaries - for everyone except Democrats...
...a slightly watered-down version of the infamous "guns in bars" bill. His SB1132 would allow gun owners to carry their weapons in a restaurant as long as the proprietor of the establishment specifically posted that such was allowed. (note: Believe it or not, I could actually support this bill except for the fact that the posting required under the language of this bill doesn't actually clearly state that guns are permitted. Yes, that means that patrons that aren't part of the gun culture wouldn't know that they were around people who were mixing booze and guns. An article on the bill by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the Sierra Vista Herald is here.)
...his refusal to hold re-confirmation hearings for the commander of the Arizona National Guard, Gen. David Rataczak, because he doesn't like the fact that Governor Napolitano hasn't mobilized the National Guard to patrol the border with Mexico. (EV Trib editorial here)
...his sponsorship of seven bills designed to reduce state or local revenues (i.e. - SB1002, end equalization tax for education; SB1138, bar local development fees to pay for schools in newly'built areas) or increase fiscal irresponsibility (HCR2004, creative use of federal money that isn't subject to specific encumberances).
[And all you CD8 types should remember that Tim Bee is the one who put Harper on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Just something to think about when Bee tries to portray himself as a "moderate Republican" during his campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in November.]
...the reintroduction of a bill to create a state-sponsored and funded anti-immigrant vigilante force...errr..."homeland security force" (SCR1007).
...during a meeting of the Joint Appropriations Committee on January 23rd, he grilled ASU Michael Crow over university courses that "challenge the social norms." He objects to courses that discuss subjects, such as sexuality, that are "deviant from from the majority" and wants "assurance that courses that challenge the social norms will be eliminated in light of budget issues." (The lege's video archive page is here; select the longer January 23, 2008 meeting. Harper's part starts at around the 1:21:00 mark.)
Yes, in a period when the state is facing a budget shortfall in the vicinity a billion dollars, and he's concerned with a couple of individual class offerings that have a single class section. He's actually interested in turning the state universities into higher-ed versions of vocational high schools, not institutions of higher learning -
He wants his "tax money going to train someone for a career not going to push someone's social agenda."
No UFO sightings here, but Sen. Harper offers a well-rounded resume. He's petty, unprofessional, reactionary, and bigoted.
He's made a very strong statement in his campaign to retain the title.
Next up: State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8).
Later!
Monday, January 07, 2008
To Jack Harper I say this: Thank You.
One of the biggest complaints that I hear from independent voters concerns the divisively rancorous of partisan politics these days, and how they place the blame for that on both parties equally.
Then someone comes along to show everyone precisely where that blame belongs...
State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been making a strong early push in the race for the 2008 Legislative Loon award, what with his efforts to 'de-citizenfy' babies because he doesn't approve of their parents and his now-abandoned run at Rep. Jeff Flake's seat in the CD6 Republican primary (from the *right* of all places!).
However, the winner of the 2007 Legislative Loon award, state Sen. Jack Harper, isn't giving up his title without a fierce fight.
From Amanda Crawford at the AZ Republic's Plugged In -
Harper's bill, SB1064, would allow someone (emphasis mine) "who is registered as independent, as no party preference, as a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 or as a member of a political party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 and that has the highest number of registered voters as of the last day on which a person may register to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary..." to cast a ballot in any party's presidential preference primary.
As of October 1, 2007 (the date of the most recent voter registration count on the AZ Secretary of State's website), the Republican Party has a voter reg advantage of just over 141,000 voters.
Even the cosponsor of the bill, Sen. Jim Waring, was surprised by anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) language (apparently he didn't read the bill before signing on as a cosponsor - how foolish is that?), stating that he won't vote for the bill unless it is changed to a fair one.
...For proposing a bill that is so beyond the pale that even one of his fellow conservative Republicans has publicly stated his opposition to it...
...For finding a reservoir of shamelessness within himself that is deep enough to both propose a bill that is so completely contemptuous of democratic principles *and* to avoid publicly standing behind it...
...For giving the Arizona Republican Party a public face that truly represents the party's core values...during an election year...
...For helping to illustrate in stark contrast the differences between the two major parties...
...For all that and more (check out his SCR1007, another attempt to create a state-funded vigilante force), I say this to Jack Harper -
Thank you.
The funny thing is, if he had just proposed a clean bill, one that allowed independent or non-affiliated voters to vote in any presidential preference primary that they wanted to, he would have been hailed by independents and maybe even earned a little respect from Democrats (yes, even me :) ).
Guess he's more interested in winning the Legislative Loon award again than in winning respect.
Then someone comes along to show everyone precisely where that blame belongs...
State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been making a strong early push in the race for the 2008 Legislative Loon award, what with his efforts to 'de-citizenfy' babies because he doesn't approve of their parents and his now-abandoned run at Rep. Jeff Flake's seat in the CD6 Republican primary (from the *right* of all places!).
However, the winner of the 2007 Legislative Loon award, state Sen. Jack Harper, isn't giving up his title without a fierce fight.
From Amanda Crawford at the AZ Republic's Plugged In -
Sen. Jack Harper is responding to the outcries of constituents, he says, in a bill that will allow independents to vote in presidential primaries while sticking it to the Dems at the same time.When asked by a reporter, Harper declined to defend his proposal to grant Republican voters more freedom than Democratic voters. The only thing that he stated, over and over, was "that the independents are no longer disenfranchised."
The bill, which Harper filed today, would allow unaffiliated voters, Repubicans and members of minority parties to choose which primary they vote in, Democrat or Republican. Registered Democrats, however, would only be able to vote in the Democratic primary.
Harper's bill, SB1064, would allow someone (emphasis mine) "who is registered as independent, as no party preference, as a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 or as a member of a political party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 and that has the highest number of registered voters as of the last day on which a person may register to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary..." to cast a ballot in any party's presidential preference primary.
As of October 1, 2007 (the date of the most recent voter registration count on the AZ Secretary of State's website), the Republican Party has a voter reg advantage of just over 141,000 voters.
Even the cosponsor of the bill, Sen. Jim Waring, was surprised by anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) language (apparently he didn't read the bill before signing on as a cosponsor - how foolish is that?), stating that he won't vote for the bill unless it is changed to a fair one.
...For proposing a bill that is so beyond the pale that even one of his fellow conservative Republicans has publicly stated his opposition to it...
...For finding a reservoir of shamelessness within himself that is deep enough to both propose a bill that is so completely contemptuous of democratic principles *and* to avoid publicly standing behind it...
...For giving the Arizona Republican Party a public face that truly represents the party's core values...during an election year...
...For helping to illustrate in stark contrast the differences between the two major parties...
...For all that and more (check out his SCR1007, another attempt to create a state-funded vigilante force), I say this to Jack Harper -
Thank you.
The funny thing is, if he had just proposed a clean bill, one that allowed independent or non-affiliated voters to vote in any presidential preference primary that they wanted to, he would have been hailed by independents and maybe even earned a little respect from Democrats (yes, even me :) ).
Guess he's more interested in winning the Legislative Loon award again than in winning respect.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing
...Is state Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) trying to move up? Right now, most of his blog coverage is limited to "That's our Jack! Isn't he a nut?" posts, but a bill that he has proposed for the looming session of the Arizona lege may support moving him from the "loon" category of coverage into the "follow the money" category.
If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."
In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.
When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.
So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.
That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.
It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.
Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.
End edit.
...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?
George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)
He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.
The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.
From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -
Consider this -
- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.
- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.
Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.
Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?
The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.
I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.
However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.
Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?
Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.
...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.
So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?
Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?
Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?
Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?
The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)
Later!
If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."
In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.
When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.
So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.
That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.
It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.
Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.
End edit.
...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?
George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)
He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.
The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.
From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -
"My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple," Lautenberg said in a statement.
Consider this -
- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.
- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.
Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.
Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?
The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.
I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.
However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.
Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?
Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.
...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.
So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?
Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?
Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?
Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?
The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)
Later!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing
...From the "great minds think alike, even if they're 120 miles apart" department...
Spent last evening enjoying good conversation over good food with good people, aka a "Democratic happy hour," this one in Mesa.
One of the first things that I read after getting home was this post from Tedski at R-Cubed about the latest antics of State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise!). It seems that the good senator decided to chide a Democrat, Chad Campbell, for taking part in a taxpayer-funded trip to Ireland to study Ireland's economic development efforts.
There was only one "minor" problem with Harper's criticism - the bipartisan trip was privately funded.
Oops.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read previous posts in this blog concerning Harper - he did win the coveted "Legislative Loon" Award for 2007 (awarded by yours truly :) ).
The current odds have him favored to repeat in 2008. :)
And the "great minds" part?
At the Dem happy hour in Mesa, part of the conversation revolved around how happy we were that Robert Boehlke will be challenging Harper for the LD4 Senate seat next year.
He's running as a Clean Elections candidate, so he won't need much in financial help (just 5s and seed money), but if you live in LD4, when he comes around asking for volunteers, signatures, and votes, help him out.
...Speaking of candidates in next year's elections, Judah Nativio has turned in paperwork for a run at the LD18 Senate seat. While it's still unclear whether he'll be facing incumbent Karen Johnson (R-UFO) or termed-out-as-State-Representative (and erstwhile challenger to fellow Republican Jeff Flake in CD6) Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance), what is clear is that he understands that he is running to represent the *district,* not just a radical portion of one party.
Unlike both of his potential opponents.
I spoke with him for a few minutes tonight - he's a former police officer and was, until recently, a member of Mesa's Human Relations Advisory Board ("recent" as in until AZ's resign-to-run law kicked in); his wife Amy teaches at Taylor Junior High.
Note - arriving after she finished teaching a class was Tammie Pursley, a once (2006) and future (2008) candidate for LD18 House.
Maybe the way to get the lege to tackle the issue of AZ's failing education system is to elect teachers or those who hold teachers near and dear.
Just something to think about when Ms. Pursley and Mr. Nativio come knocking...
More as the campaign season unfolds...
...With the latest Middle East peace conference, George Bush has officially reached "lame-duck" status...
I truly wish success in the endeavor to him and everyone involved, but it seems like that for decades, when U.S. presidents start looking for a way to preserve their 'legacy' (whatever that may mean) their eyes turn toward that seemingly intractable mess in the Middle East.
And some, such as Bush himself, ignore their own contributions to the never-ending strife...but I digress :)) .
Overall, the most of these conferences define success as an agreement by the individuals in the conference rooms that they won't kill each other. Unfortunately, people that aren't in the conference rooms don't take that idea to heart.
Perhaps the problem is that while peace between nations with armies on fields of battle can be negotiated in well-appointed rooms and great halls of power, the strife in the Middle East, particularly that in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, can only be truly addressed at the level of the conflict - street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood.
This might be the only time that I'll ever wish Bush and his associates well (let's face it - 99% of the time, they're nothing but crooks), but on this one, they have my high hopes for success.
Just not my high expectations.
...And lastly, while the weather forecast for the Phoenix area this weekend includes rain, we really should be on the lookout for an ice storm. My meteorological evidence?
I agreed with AZ Rep columnist Laurie Roberts.
Earlier this week, she wrote that "Jesus Manuel Cordova is nobody special."
Mr. Cordova is the migrant from Mexico who stopped and aided a 9-year old boy whose mother had died in a car accident near the border, even though helping the child would result in his detention and deportation by ICE.
Robert wrote -
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Later!
Spent last evening enjoying good conversation over good food with good people, aka a "Democratic happy hour," this one in Mesa.
One of the first things that I read after getting home was this post from Tedski at R-Cubed about the latest antics of State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise!). It seems that the good senator decided to chide a Democrat, Chad Campbell, for taking part in a taxpayer-funded trip to Ireland to study Ireland's economic development efforts.
There was only one "minor" problem with Harper's criticism - the bipartisan trip was privately funded.
Oops.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read previous posts in this blog concerning Harper - he did win the coveted "Legislative Loon" Award for 2007 (awarded by yours truly :) ).
The current odds have him favored to repeat in 2008. :)
And the "great minds" part?
At the Dem happy hour in Mesa, part of the conversation revolved around how happy we were that Robert Boehlke will be challenging Harper for the LD4 Senate seat next year.
He's running as a Clean Elections candidate, so he won't need much in financial help (just 5s and seed money), but if you live in LD4, when he comes around asking for volunteers, signatures, and votes, help him out.
...Speaking of candidates in next year's elections, Judah Nativio has turned in paperwork for a run at the LD18 Senate seat. While it's still unclear whether he'll be facing incumbent Karen Johnson (R-UFO) or termed-out-as-State-Representative (and erstwhile challenger to fellow Republican Jeff Flake in CD6) Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance), what is clear is that he understands that he is running to represent the *district,* not just a radical portion of one party.
Unlike both of his potential opponents.
I spoke with him for a few minutes tonight - he's a former police officer and was, until recently, a member of Mesa's Human Relations Advisory Board ("recent" as in until AZ's resign-to-run law kicked in); his wife Amy teaches at Taylor Junior High.
Note - arriving after she finished teaching a class was Tammie Pursley, a once (2006) and future (2008) candidate for LD18 House.
Maybe the way to get the lege to tackle the issue of AZ's failing education system is to elect teachers or those who hold teachers near and dear.
Just something to think about when Ms. Pursley and Mr. Nativio come knocking...
More as the campaign season unfolds...
...With the latest Middle East peace conference, George Bush has officially reached "lame-duck" status...
I truly wish success in the endeavor to him and everyone involved, but it seems like that for decades, when U.S. presidents start looking for a way to preserve their 'legacy' (whatever that may mean) their eyes turn toward that seemingly intractable mess in the Middle East.
And some, such as Bush himself, ignore their own contributions to the never-ending strife...but I digress :)) .
Overall, the most of these conferences define success as an agreement by the individuals in the conference rooms that they won't kill each other. Unfortunately, people that aren't in the conference rooms don't take that idea to heart.
Perhaps the problem is that while peace between nations with armies on fields of battle can be negotiated in well-appointed rooms and great halls of power, the strife in the Middle East, particularly that in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, can only be truly addressed at the level of the conflict - street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood.
This might be the only time that I'll ever wish Bush and his associates well (let's face it - 99% of the time, they're nothing but crooks), but on this one, they have my high hopes for success.
Just not my high expectations.
...And lastly, while the weather forecast for the Phoenix area this weekend includes rain, we really should be on the lookout for an ice storm. My meteorological evidence?
I agreed with AZ Rep columnist Laurie Roberts.
Earlier this week, she wrote that "Jesus Manuel Cordova is nobody special."
Mr. Cordova is the migrant from Mexico who stopped and aided a 9-year old boy whose mother had died in a car accident near the border, even though helping the child would result in his detention and deportation by ICE.
Robert wrote -
In fact, Jesus Manuel Cordova is probably nobody special. Just a guy like millions of others, fleeing a country that has failed him, one who stopped and helped a stranger despite the consequences to his own family.She went on to express hope that this incident causes us to "reclaim the debate about illegal immigration that has been taken over by the extremes in this country, those who would have you believe that every person here illegally is out to rob us and cheat us and steal our country."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Later!
Monday, November 19, 2007
Quick update - upcoming elections and legislation
There's nearly a year to go until next November's elections and nearly a month and a half before the start of the next session of the Arizona Legislature, but campaign announcements, endorsements, and proposed legislation are already hitting the news and the email inbox every day...
...Republican State Senator Jim Waring is mad as hell at his cell phone provider and isn't taking it anymore. :)
From the Arizona Daily Star -
For the article, Susan Bitter Smith, lobbyist for the cell phone providers and possible 2008 challenger to Congressman Harry Mitchell, said that her industry hasn't taken an official position on the bill as yet; however, she and her organization, the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Association, have historically opposed any efforts to strengthen consumer protections.
My prediction: since the AZ lege is still controlled by a Republican leadership that believes that 'caveat emptor' is responsible government policy, this bill is either DOA or will be watered down to the point of uselessness.
Note to Sen. Waring - Is something only a problem when a sitting Republican legislator faces that problem? People have been complaining about the cell phone industry for years. Where was the respect for consumers then?
Still, Republican proposal or not, DOA or not, SB1010 is a good start.
...Democratic Reps. David Schapira (LD17) and Jackie Thrasher (LD10) have already submitted HB2001, a bill to ban smoking in cars with minors present.
From the AZ Daily Star -
I'm pretty sure this one won't pass, either, since tobacco giant RJ Reynolds has already expressed opposition.
...While the bill hasn't been submitted yet, LD17 State Representative Schapira and State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill are working on legislation to regulate the tattoo industry.
From an Arizona Republic article -
Stay tuned on this one.
...Democratic State Reps. Kyrsten Sinema, Chad Campbell, and Tom Prezelski have submitted HB2002, a bill that bars employment discrimination based on "gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation."
Nope, this one won't pass, either. I can't see the likes of Russell Pearce or Jack Harper or any of their ideological cronies letting this one get even a committee hearing.
Note: On December 4, 2007, the Scottsdale City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider adding similar language to its employment policy; sometime in the weeks thereafter it will consider adding that language to the non-discrimination ordinances and policies that contractors with City and businesses operating in Scottsdale must adhere to.
...In Scottsdale election news, as expected, Mayor Mary Manross announced her candidacy for reelection.
From her press release -
More substantively, she touted her efforts to "to reduce Scottsdale’s property tax rate. . Over the past decade the rate has dropped from $1.57 to $. 79. Our tax rate, today, is less than half of neighboring Phoenix’s tax rate. That’s being fiscally conservative."
That's an argument that will play well in Scottsdale.
East Valley Tribune coverage here.
As of right now her rumored opponents are current Council member Jim Lane, who can't officially announce his candidacy until January due to AZ's pesky 'resign to run' law, and lawyer Jim Derouin, who has said that he won't run if Lane does (see the Trib article at the link).
I'm not a huge fan of Manross (as anyone who has read this blog already knows), but I'm not convinced that either of the rumored candidates is a better alternative, especially since the major plank of their campaign platforms seems to be "I'm not Mary Manross."
More as the campaign season unfolds.
...The Club For Growth, an anti-government, pro-privatization, right-wing group, has endorsed David Schweikert in the CD5 Republican primary.
From The Politico, via CBS News -
Also from the article -
Umm, regarding the endorsement - *yawwwwn.*
Later!
...Republican State Senator Jim Waring is mad as hell at his cell phone provider and isn't taking it anymore. :)
From the Arizona Daily Star -
PHOENIX — When Jim Waring got what he considered a runaround from his cell phone company, he got mad.He has already submitted SB1010 for the 2nd session of the 48th Arizona legislature.
But when he continued to hear similar stories from others, he did something else: He used his power as a state senator to introduce legislation that, if approved, would create a cell phone users' "bill of rights" for Arizona customers.
For the article, Susan Bitter Smith, lobbyist for the cell phone providers and possible 2008 challenger to Congressman Harry Mitchell, said that her industry hasn't taken an official position on the bill as yet; however, she and her organization, the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Association, have historically opposed any efforts to strengthen consumer protections.
My prediction: since the AZ lege is still controlled by a Republican leadership that believes that 'caveat emptor' is responsible government policy, this bill is either DOA or will be watered down to the point of uselessness.
Note to Sen. Waring - Is something only a problem when a sitting Republican legislator faces that problem? People have been complaining about the cell phone industry for years. Where was the respect for consumers then?
Still, Republican proposal or not, DOA or not, SB1010 is a good start.
...Democratic Reps. David Schapira (LD17) and Jackie Thrasher (LD10) have already submitted HB2001, a bill to ban smoking in cars with minors present.
From the AZ Daily Star -
"There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't know that smoking causes cancer," said sponsoring Rep. David Schapira, a Tempe Democrat. What that means, he said, is that adults who smoke in front of children, particularly in enclosed places, are knowingly causing them harm.
"That's the definition of child abuse," he said.
I'm pretty sure this one won't pass, either, since tobacco giant RJ Reynolds has already expressed opposition.
...While the bill hasn't been submitted yet, LD17 State Representative Schapira and State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill are working on legislation to regulate the tattoo industry.
From an Arizona Republic article -
Valley tattoo-parlor owners, eager to protect and burnish the reputation of their industry, are calling for state regulation of the tattoo trade.
Shop owners have teamed up to form the Arizona Tattoo and Piercing Association, and one of the organization's first steps was to meet this week with state legislators who say they now intend to introduce legislation to regulate the tattoo industry.
{snip}
State Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, said that on Wednesday, he and Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill, D-Tempe, met with Dowdell and Sage O'Connell, owner of Urban Art Tattoo & Piercing in Mesa.
"What we heard from the tattoo industry is that they want to be more respected, and unless there is some sort of regulation, shops can exist which will give a bad name to the whole industry," Schapira said.
He said he intends to introduce legislation to bring regulation to the tattoo industry at the upcoming session of the Legislature.
Burton-Cahill said she considers the matter "an issue of public health."
"When you get your hair cut, you know that person has met a basic standard, and when we have tattoo artists putting holes in people, you want to know you are going to a shop that has met basic health standards," she said.
Stay tuned on this one.
...Democratic State Reps. Kyrsten Sinema, Chad Campbell, and Tom Prezelski have submitted HB2002, a bill that bars employment discrimination based on "gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation."
Nope, this one won't pass, either. I can't see the likes of Russell Pearce or Jack Harper or any of their ideological cronies letting this one get even a committee hearing.
Note: On December 4, 2007, the Scottsdale City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider adding similar language to its employment policy; sometime in the weeks thereafter it will consider adding that language to the non-discrimination ordinances and policies that contractors with City and businesses operating in Scottsdale must adhere to.
...In Scottsdale election news, as expected, Mayor Mary Manross announced her candidacy for reelection.
From her press release -
“We are truly a community where the Old West meets the New West; working to preserve our historic past while building Scottsdale’s sustainable future. A clear vision and an unwavering commitment to building a bridge to the future are paying huge dividends for Scottsdale. The clouds of uncertainty that hung over our city just eight short years ago have been lifted and Scottsdale’s future has never been brighter. Today is a time of tremendous confidence, enthusiasm, and momentum."
More substantively, she touted her efforts to "to reduce Scottsdale’s property tax rate. . Over the past decade the rate has dropped from $1.57 to $. 79. Our tax rate, today, is less than half of neighboring Phoenix’s tax rate. That’s being fiscally conservative."
That's an argument that will play well in Scottsdale.
East Valley Tribune coverage here.
As of right now her rumored opponents are current Council member Jim Lane, who can't officially announce his candidacy until January due to AZ's pesky 'resign to run' law, and lawyer Jim Derouin, who has said that he won't run if Lane does (see the Trib article at the link).
I'm not a huge fan of Manross (as anyone who has read this blog already knows), but I'm not convinced that either of the rumored candidates is a better alternative, especially since the major plank of their campaign platforms seems to be "I'm not Mary Manross."
More as the campaign season unfolds.
...The Club For Growth, an anti-government, pro-privatization, right-wing group, has endorsed David Schweikert in the CD5 Republican primary.
From The Politico, via CBS News -
“It is clear that David Schweikert is a tireless defender of taxpayers who will continue to fight for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey in a statement.It's interesting that CFG is endorsing a candidate before all likely candidates have had the opportunity to enter the race; maybe they're trying to change their recent spate of bad luck.
Also from the article -
The Club for Growth has been off to a slow start this election cycle, with two if its endorsed candidates losing in competitive GOP nomination battles.
In Ohio’s 5th District, Club-backed candidate state Sen. Steve Buehrer lost to state Rep. Bob Latta in this month’s GOP special election primary. And activist Paul Jost, who headed the Virginia chapter of the Club for Growth, narrowly lost the GOP nomination to succeed the late Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) to state Del. Rob Wittman.
Umm, regarding the endorsement - *yawwwwn.*
Later!
Saturday, July 21, 2007
And the 'green' grades are in...
Credit for the heads-up on this goes to the AZ Rep's Plugged In...
Congrats to LD17 State Reps. Ed Ableser and David Schapira for making the honor roll of the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club for their work during the 2007 session of the legislature.
Both scored 100% under the LCV's weighted grading guidelines!
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill slacked off this session, weighing down the overall D17 score by coming in at only 97%.
If only she'd used 'green' crutches while recovering from foot surgery this winter. :))
It was also nice to see that many of the legislators that have received praise here and in other blogs for their fine work in the lege also scored well with the AzCLV (Steve Farley's 100%, for example), while others that have received criticism scored poorly with the AzCLV, too -
Sen. Ron 'Confederate Flag' Gould (R-LD3) .....18%
Rep. Trish 'DUI' Groe (R-LD3).....19%
Maybe it's something in the LD3 water, though if there is, expect Groe and Gould to be OK with that, particularly if some company is making money off of it.
Of course, the same might be said in LD18 -
Rep. Russell 'National Alliance' Pearce (R-LD18).....26%
Sen. Karen 'UFO Sighting' Johnson (R-LD18).....29%
And the district most likely to welcome a toxic waste dump?
LD22, with Sen. Thayer Vershoor (R) scoring 37%, Rep. Andy Biggs (R) scoring 23% and Rep. Eddie Farnsworth scoring 25%.
By comparison, my [least] favorite state senator, Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) did remarkably well, scoring a 48%!
His loyal constituents should take heart though; I have no doubt that Jack will see this score and use it as motivation for next session.
That score will be in single digits faster than you can say 'culture of corruption.'
:))
Note: The AzCLV's legislative scorecard is here; Sierra Club's press release is here.
Congrats to LD17 State Reps. Ed Ableser and David Schapira for making the honor roll of the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club for their work during the 2007 session of the legislature.
Both scored 100% under the LCV's weighted grading guidelines!
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill slacked off this session, weighing down the overall D17 score by coming in at only 97%.
If only she'd used 'green' crutches while recovering from foot surgery this winter. :))
It was also nice to see that many of the legislators that have received praise here and in other blogs for their fine work in the lege also scored well with the AzCLV (Steve Farley's 100%, for example), while others that have received criticism scored poorly with the AzCLV, too -
Sen. Ron 'Confederate Flag' Gould (R-LD3) .....18%
Rep. Trish 'DUI' Groe (R-LD3).....19%
Maybe it's something in the LD3 water, though if there is, expect Groe and Gould to be OK with that, particularly if some company is making money off of it.
Of course, the same might be said in LD18 -
Rep. Russell 'National Alliance' Pearce (R-LD18).....26%
Sen. Karen 'UFO Sighting' Johnson (R-LD18).....29%
And the district most likely to welcome a toxic waste dump?
LD22, with Sen. Thayer Vershoor (R) scoring 37%, Rep. Andy Biggs (R) scoring 23% and Rep. Eddie Farnsworth scoring 25%.
By comparison, my [least] favorite state senator, Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) did remarkably well, scoring a 48%!
His loyal constituents should take heart though; I have no doubt that Jack will see this score and use it as motivation for next session.
That score will be in single digits faster than you can say 'culture of corruption.'
:))
Note: The AzCLV's legislative scorecard is here; Sierra Club's press release is here.
Monday, June 25, 2007
This week's cliche: What's good for the good is good for the gander
You know, I may be a partisan hack, but at least I'm up front about it...the MSM should be required to be just as honest.
Background:
On a regular basis, Greg over at Espresso Pundit likes to point out apparent MSM bias in the way they write or present a story.
Naturally, being a conservative Republican, he usually (OK, 'always' :) ) sees that bias as a 'liberal' one.
I usually disagree with his accusations of "Liberal bias!"; more often, I see those articles as having a 'lazy' or worse, 'corporate', bias. However, to be fair, the pieces he criticizes are usually sloppily written, regardless of why they are that way (disagreement is what makes for an interesting discussion :) ).
Now it's my turn. :))
With that as background, on to the main part of the post...
One of the tools that can be used in a slanted article written by a author who wants to appear objective is 'smear by juxtaposition'; in short, describe something bad, and write about the target of the smear in close proximity to that 'bad' thing.
For example - "The challenges facing the Republican Party in the next election cycle, at both the national and the state levels, increase every time one of their members is indicted or imprisoned. State Sen. Jack Harper, speaking at a forum..."
Now, in less than two sentences, I've associated Jack Harper with corruption, without ever actually saying that he's corrupt or presenting evidence to support such an assertion.
[BTW - In spite of my problems with the Senator (which are legion!), to the best of my knowledge he is not corrupt, and I would never say or imply otherwise without evidence to support that position.]
[BTW2 - 'Obnoxious', 'arrogant', 'openly contemptuous of those who disagree with him'...and more, all have evidence to support their use as descriptors of Sen. Harper. Those I'll write. :))) ]
Now the Phoenix Business Journal is using that tactic in an article published last week regarding Congress' poor poll ratings.
The article focuses on the general poll numbers for Congress, without exploring the history of them (I'm sure some of the cause is the unfulfilled high expectations for the new Democratic majority, but gee - do ya' think that 12 years of Republican mismanagement and corruption in the House could have set the stage for the overall low numbers?) and the pressure felt by the Democrats (but nothing about the ongoing investigations/indictments, almost exclusively focused on Republicans)...but I digress...
Then the article goes on to mention three AZ House members by name -
Three Arizona congressional seats are expected to be competitive in the 2008 races: Mitchell's Tempe/Scottsdale seat, Giffords' Tucson district, and a rural seat held by Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Flagstaff/Casa Grande.
Only one of those named is currently under investigation. Can you guess which one?
Hint: it isn't either of the Democrats.
Oh, and the article closes with a sentence that implies that the Democrats were uncooperative with the reporter writing the article -
Mitchell's and Giffords' offices did not respond to requests for comment on the national polls.
Just a couple of questions - what did Renzi's office have to say (there aren't any Renzi quotes of any kind in the article) and did the reporter even call Renzi's office?
I'm not sure if the last sentence illustrates the writer's bias, or just showcases his laziness.
Sheesh...
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The People, the State, and even the Republic itself are a little safer today...
...for today on the floor of the Arizona Senate, Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) announced that he is leaving for a vacation tomorrow.
Now, if only he could take Jim Weiers and the House Republican leadership with him; maybe then the lege could pass a halfway decent budget and end the session.
[What can I say? It's been too long since my last 'pick on Jack Harper' post. I just couldn't resist this one. :) ]
Now, if only he could take Jim Weiers and the House Republican leadership with him; maybe then the lege could pass a halfway decent budget and end the session.
[What can I say? It's been too long since my last 'pick on Jack Harper' post. I just couldn't resist this one. :) ]
Monday, May 14, 2007
Moving into the 21st Century...
I finally broke down and picked up a notebook...whooo hoooo!
Nothing fancy, just a Dell Latitude with lots of memory (2GB RAM, 80GB HD); I'll be spending a lot of time over the next couple of days getting it configured the way that I want it.
I've been going through Excel withdrawal since my home machine needed a reformat.
Yes, I'm a geek. :))
For a couple of days I probably won't be posting much (unless Bush resigns), so I'll leave with a tip to check out Lofty Donkey's post of a very informative Jack Harper email calling for a rally to support Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee when he visits Phoenix next week.
Did you know that people who oppose the war in Iraq are "anarchists"??
I think that may be the nicest thing he's ever said about me. [sniff!]
I'm so flattered that I won't even pick on his spelling, grammar, or formatting.
Later!
Nothing fancy, just a Dell Latitude with lots of memory (2GB RAM, 80GB HD); I'll be spending a lot of time over the next couple of days getting it configured the way that I want it.
I've been going through Excel withdrawal since my home machine needed a reformat.
Yes, I'm a geek. :))
For a couple of days I probably won't be posting much (unless Bush resigns), so I'll leave with a tip to check out Lofty Donkey's post of a very informative Jack Harper email calling for a rally to support Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee when he visits Phoenix next week.
Did you know that people who oppose the war in Iraq are "anarchists"??
I think that may be the nicest thing he's ever said about me. [sniff!]
I'm so flattered that I won't even pick on his spelling, grammar, or formatting.
Later!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Brand new day, same old Jack
Yeah, I wasn't going to post, but while I was in the middle of setting up and formatting the new CD5-only blog, I had the TV on and tuned to Arizona Capitol Television. And before you ask, yes, I know I need help. :)
Jack Harper was in 'classic Jack' form today. :))
The channel was airing today's meeting of the Joint Committee to Investigate Operations and Conditions at the AZ Veterans Home, featuring the testimony for the former director of the Arizona Department of Veterans Services, Patrick Chorpenning.
Just a couple of observations -
The Governor's office is *definitely* not on Mr. Chorpenning's Christmas card list. He believes he was unfairly made a scapegoat for the conditions at the Veterans Home (the phrase was "thrown under the bus").
However, and this adds to his credibility, when Sen. Jack Harper teed up an opportunity for Mr. Chorpenning to take a shot at Harry Mitchell, he strongly backed up the Congressman.
Harper started off by reminding everyone of Mitchell's visit to the Carl Hayden VA Medical Center and how the Congressman and his staff had met up with Chorpenning in front of the state Veterans Home (the facilities are across a parking lot from each other). Harper then tried to lead Chorpenning into saying that Mitchell was aware of the conditions at the state veterans home and said nothing about them.
Chorpenning would have none of that; he stated that the Congressman and his staffers were somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the whole complex and it was easier to just meet in front of the state home and walk over to the VA facility together.
Chorpenning is certainly angry, but it's not a blind anger. He's not out to pass the blame to anyone he doesn't believe has earned it.
Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is a very different story.
I've noticed this tendency in Harper before; at the last meeting of this committee that I was able to watch, he spent most of his time trying to trick a lawyer into saying something that would incriminate her firm or the Governor's office; in short, then, as now, as always, he was more interested in scoring partisan political points than in addressing the needs of Arizona's elderly veterans.
Also, this wasn't the first time Harper has tried to use the Arizona State Veterans Home situation to throw mud on U.S. Representative Harry Mitchell; Tedski at R-Cubed covered an earlier attempt in March. The Harper press release that he talks about is here.
The Republicans are going to have enough trouble keeping control of the lege next year without Harper running amok; with him off the leash, they may lose both chambers.
By the way, I have one piece of advice for the good Senator; well, actually, two pieces of advice -
1. Keep up the obnoxiousness, the louder the better; the phrase "Speaker Phil Lopes" has a nice ring to it.
2. Don't try to verbally fence with a lawyer; you'll lose every time. Words are their stock-in-trade. 'Nuff said.
:)
Notes -
The attorney was Karen Owens of Coppersmith Gordon Schermer Owens & Nelson, the firm that is representing the state veterans home as it deals with the administrative sanctions relating to inpsections earlier this year.
That meeting (the one with Ms. Owens) took place on April 24th; the video archive is available here. Her testimony begins somewhere around the 1:06 mark; her exchange with Harper begins near the 1:28 mark.
The video of today's meeting isn't on the website yet.
AZ Rep coverage of the first part of the meeting is here.
Later!
Jack Harper was in 'classic Jack' form today. :))
The channel was airing today's meeting of the Joint Committee to Investigate Operations and Conditions at the AZ Veterans Home, featuring the testimony for the former director of the Arizona Department of Veterans Services, Patrick Chorpenning.
Just a couple of observations -
The Governor's office is *definitely* not on Mr. Chorpenning's Christmas card list. He believes he was unfairly made a scapegoat for the conditions at the Veterans Home (the phrase was "thrown under the bus").
However, and this adds to his credibility, when Sen. Jack Harper teed up an opportunity for Mr. Chorpenning to take a shot at Harry Mitchell, he strongly backed up the Congressman.
Harper started off by reminding everyone of Mitchell's visit to the Carl Hayden VA Medical Center and how the Congressman and his staff had met up with Chorpenning in front of the state Veterans Home (the facilities are across a parking lot from each other). Harper then tried to lead Chorpenning into saying that Mitchell was aware of the conditions at the state veterans home and said nothing about them.
Chorpenning would have none of that; he stated that the Congressman and his staffers were somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the whole complex and it was easier to just meet in front of the state home and walk over to the VA facility together.
Chorpenning is certainly angry, but it's not a blind anger. He's not out to pass the blame to anyone he doesn't believe has earned it.
Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is a very different story.
I've noticed this tendency in Harper before; at the last meeting of this committee that I was able to watch, he spent most of his time trying to trick a lawyer into saying something that would incriminate her firm or the Governor's office; in short, then, as now, as always, he was more interested in scoring partisan political points than in addressing the needs of Arizona's elderly veterans.
Also, this wasn't the first time Harper has tried to use the Arizona State Veterans Home situation to throw mud on U.S. Representative Harry Mitchell; Tedski at R-Cubed covered an earlier attempt in March. The Harper press release that he talks about is here.
The Republicans are going to have enough trouble keeping control of the lege next year without Harper running amok; with him off the leash, they may lose both chambers.
By the way, I have one piece of advice for the good Senator; well, actually, two pieces of advice -
1. Keep up the obnoxiousness, the louder the better; the phrase "Speaker Phil Lopes" has a nice ring to it.
2. Don't try to verbally fence with a lawyer; you'll lose every time. Words are their stock-in-trade. 'Nuff said.
:)
Notes -
The attorney was Karen Owens of Coppersmith Gordon Schermer Owens & Nelson, the firm that is representing the state veterans home as it deals with the administrative sanctions relating to inpsections earlier this year.
That meeting (the one with Ms. Owens) took place on April 24th; the video archive is available here. Her testimony begins somewhere around the 1:06 mark; her exchange with Harper begins near the 1:28 mark.
The video of today's meeting isn't on the website yet.
AZ Rep coverage of the first part of the meeting is here.
Later!
Monday, April 23, 2007
Innocent ol' me, upsetting people without even trying...
...normally not something I'd be proud of, but considering who was annoyed, I'm OK with it.
So there I was over on Espresso Pundit (a well-written blog, even if Greg usually takes the wrong positions on issues :) )...anyway, there I was, innocently reading the comments section of a post detailing Greg Patterson's appearance on Channel 12's "Sunday Square Off" with Tom Liddy and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.
Greg's post was civil and informative (a couple of the reasons that his blog is so good), but a couple of the commenters took issue with Rep. Sinema, with one calling her an "ignoramus" while another called her an "embarrassment" to Democrats and stated that the Repubs were happy she is around (presumably to add to our embarrassment.)
Naturally, being a fan of hers and a loyal Democrat (and being really bored at the time), I made a comment defending her.
The sequence of comments -
OK. It wasn't exactly the sharpest or wittiest of repartee, but it wasn't exactly inflammatory, either.
Or so I thought. :)
The next commenter took serious offense at one part of my comment.
To that I say: Senator, if you can get the lege and the Secretary of State to waive the whole "live in the district to run there" thing, I just might take you up on the challenge, if only for the sheer joy of 'squaring off' against you in a couple of debates. And that's coming from someone who basically shy and has *no* public speaking or debating skills.
...Now, I could have said something snarky about Harper's last line, like "you know the old saying Jack - God protects fools and drunks?" Well, I'll grant that you seem like a pretty sober guy, Senator."
But, I'm more mature than that, so I won't do something that childish. LOL
Instead, I'll just make one more point -
I've never looked into the actions and positions of Jake Flake or John Huppenthal, so I can't make an observation about the honesty of either one, but I *do* know someone who has looked into the subject of Sen. Huppenthal's honesty, and found him lacking.
Jack Harper only hurts his own credibility when he associates himself with the likes of John Huppenthal.
Note to everyone: Geo at Geo's Precinct 134 did a number of great posts on the Huppenthal story; they are linked on the main page of his blog.
Note2: My reply comment on Espresso Pundit to Jack Harper's comment -
Later!
So there I was over on Espresso Pundit (a well-written blog, even if Greg usually takes the wrong positions on issues :) )...anyway, there I was, innocently reading the comments section of a post detailing Greg Patterson's appearance on Channel 12's "Sunday Square Off" with Tom Liddy and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.
Greg's post was civil and informative (a couple of the reasons that his blog is so good), but a couple of the commenters took issue with Rep. Sinema, with one calling her an "ignoramus" while another called her an "embarrassment" to Democrats and stated that the Repubs were happy she is around (presumably to add to our embarrassment.)
Naturally, being a fan of hers and a loyal Democrat (and being really bored at the time), I made a comment defending her.
The sequence of comments -
Kyrsten Sinema is a dangerous ignoramus.
Posted by: Some Guy April 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
And a general embarassment to liberals and Democrats alike... We're lucky to have her!
Posted by: Ahwatukee Kid April 21, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Ahwatukee Kid -
As for your first comment, we feel the same way - better an honest conservative than a corrupt liberal.
Corruption does more to undermine trust in the system than honest disagreement ever will.
As for your 2nd comment, guess what? We feel the same way about Jack Harper.
Every time he spouts off, we gain voters.
Keep him right where he is. PLEASE... :)
And finally, about Kyrsten Sinema being an 'ignoramus' - not even close. She's actually one of the smartest members of the lege.
Of course, with the lege, that may not be much of a compliment... :)
Posted by: Craig April 22, 2007 at 08:28 PM
OK. It wasn't exactly the sharpest or wittiest of repartee, but it wasn't exactly inflammatory, either.
Or so I thought. :)
The next commenter took serious offense at one part of my comment.
Craig,
You are welcome to run against me if you believe everything you you read in the Napolitano Newsletter (state-wide daily paper). A recent Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate was one of the nastiest people in politics, but you never read in the biased newspaper how his millions of dollars smeared honest Republicans like John Huppenthal and Jake Flake.
So, step out of the shadows and sign up to run for the State Senate for LD-4. Many liberals have and God has protected me so far.
Posted by: State Senator Jack Harper April 22, 2007 at 08:54 PM
To that I say: Senator, if you can get the lege and the Secretary of State to waive the whole "live in the district to run there" thing, I just might take you up on the challenge, if only for the sheer joy of 'squaring off' against you in a couple of debates. And that's coming from someone who basically shy and has *no* public speaking or debating skills.
...Now, I could have said something snarky about Harper's last line, like "you know the old saying Jack - God protects fools and drunks?" Well, I'll grant that you seem like a pretty sober guy, Senator."
But, I'm more mature than that, so I won't do something that childish. LOL
Instead, I'll just make one more point -
I've never looked into the actions and positions of Jake Flake or John Huppenthal, so I can't make an observation about the honesty of either one, but I *do* know someone who has looked into the subject of Sen. Huppenthal's honesty, and found him lacking.
Jack Harper only hurts his own credibility when he associates himself with the likes of John Huppenthal.
Note to everyone: Geo at Geo's Precinct 134 did a number of great posts on the Huppenthal story; they are linked on the main page of his blog.
Note2: My reply comment on Espresso Pundit to Jack Harper's comment -
Senator Harper -
What I've learned about you didn't come from the AZ Republic.
It came from reading the bills you have proposed.
It came from visiting 1700 West Washington and watching you and the entire lege in action.
It came from watching some committee hearings involving you online.
It came from watching AZ Capitol Television.
As for running against you? That would mean moving to LD4; not going to happen.
I live in LD17, and actually like Tempe and Scottsdale.
Surprise? Not so much.
Good night everyone...
Posted by: Craig April 23, 2007 at 01:34 AM
Later!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Jack, Jack, Jack...what are we to do with you?
Edit on 4/5 -
See below for Sen. Harper's side of this from a guest post at the Sonoran Alliance. Obviously, he's unrepentant about his actions yesterday.
As noted by Tedski at Rum, Romanism,and Rebellion and by Mary Jo Pitzl at the AZ Rep's Plugged In (or at least, at what's left of it), Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) was running off at the mouth today during a hearing of the joint committee investigating the conditions at the Arizona State Veterans Home.
From the Plugged In report -
While many observers were shocked at Harper's behavior, it was no surprise for anyone who has ever attended or watched a Senate Government Committee hearing chaired by Harper.
[Note: check out AZ Capitol Television or the Lege's video archive of committee hearings. I recommend the 3/19 hearing of the Senate Government Committee to see Harper in all of his glory.]
He is consistently rude and disrespectful to witnesses, frequently using the tactic of asking a loaded or irrelevant question and then cutting off the witness before an response can be made.
Today was nothing new; he just had a larger-than-usual audience for his antics.
Heartening was the response by many of his legislative colleagues, even many Republicans.
In the House floor session later in the day, Republican Reps. Paton, Nelson (co-chair of the joint committee), Stump and McComish rose to express their disapproval of Harper's behavior, as did Democratic Rep. Ben Miranda.
Over in the Senate, Democratic Senator Richard Miranda rose take issue with Harper's behavior, equating it to the tactics of red-baiting by Sen. Joe McCarthy where he (McCarthy) engaged in character assassination by innuendo.
Harper rose to his own defense, saying that sometimes questions lead to unexpected places and [with a saccharin sweet voice] that he didn't know before today that Mr. Stephens had been involved or that Janet Napolitano had been his attorney when he was cleared.
"Didn't know?"
Like hell.
He didn't help himself when he admonished the Democratic members of the joint committee for displaying anger over his tactics.
After Harper spoke, and his saddle partner from the Government Committee, Sen. Blendu, rose to make a wishy-washy "don't want to offend my buddy but don't want to seem like I approve either" comment, Senator Ron Gould rose to defend...
...Joe McCarthy.
Ouch.
Note: Tedski has been doing great work documenting Harper's recent bouts of verbal diarrhea, including blaming *U.S.* Rep. Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *Arizona* Veterans Home. His pieces can be found here, here, here, and here.
Some of my previous pieces featuring Harper can be found here and here.
One really good thing about all this??
Right now, Jack Harper is the face and voice of the Arizona Republican Party.
God, I wish the 2008 elections were today. :)
Continuing edit:
If you want to read his entire statement, please follow the above link to Sonoran Alliance.
I'll just post one quote from his closing (emphasis mine):
So then why did you do it, and why are you so unapologetic about it, Senator Harper?
I caught part of today's hearing on AzCT. He referred to his question to Mr. Stephens as an innocent, "random" question and, as with the Sonoran Alliance post, continued to criticize the Democratic members of the joint committee for their behavior while proclaiming that his own was purely innocent.
Harper's still clueless as to how much he has embarrassed himself, his district, and the legislature. Nor does he seem to have *any* concern for the disservice he did to the state home's elderly veterans with his cheaply partisan witch-hunt tactics and contempt for the witnesses.
End edit.
Later!
See below for Sen. Harper's side of this from a guest post at the Sonoran Alliance. Obviously, he's unrepentant about his actions yesterday.
As noted by Tedski at Rum, Romanism,and Rebellion and by Mary Jo Pitzl at the AZ Rep's Plugged In (or at least, at what's left of it), Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) was running off at the mouth today during a hearing of the joint committee investigating the conditions at the Arizona State Veterans Home.
From the Plugged In report -
Harper closed the hearing by eliciting testimony from Alan Stephens, the governor's co-chief of staff, about his involvement in the AzScam political-corruption scandal in 1991. Stephens was exonerated, but Harper cut him off before he could finish his response.
While many observers were shocked at Harper's behavior, it was no surprise for anyone who has ever attended or watched a Senate Government Committee hearing chaired by Harper.
[Note: check out AZ Capitol Television or the Lege's video archive of committee hearings. I recommend the 3/19 hearing of the Senate Government Committee to see Harper in all of his glory.]
He is consistently rude and disrespectful to witnesses, frequently using the tactic of asking a loaded or irrelevant question and then cutting off the witness before an response can be made.
Today was nothing new; he just had a larger-than-usual audience for his antics.
Heartening was the response by many of his legislative colleagues, even many Republicans.
In the House floor session later in the day, Republican Reps. Paton, Nelson (co-chair of the joint committee), Stump and McComish rose to express their disapproval of Harper's behavior, as did Democratic Rep. Ben Miranda.
Over in the Senate, Democratic Senator Richard Miranda rose take issue with Harper's behavior, equating it to the tactics of red-baiting by Sen. Joe McCarthy where he (McCarthy) engaged in character assassination by innuendo.
Harper rose to his own defense, saying that sometimes questions lead to unexpected places and [with a saccharin sweet voice] that he didn't know before today that Mr. Stephens had been involved or that Janet Napolitano had been his attorney when he was cleared.
"Didn't know?"
Like hell.
He didn't help himself when he admonished the Democratic members of the joint committee for displaying anger over his tactics.
After Harper spoke, and his saddle partner from the Government Committee, Sen. Blendu, rose to make a wishy-washy "don't want to offend my buddy but don't want to seem like I approve either" comment, Senator Ron Gould rose to defend...
...Joe McCarthy.
Ouch.
Note: Tedski has been doing great work documenting Harper's recent bouts of verbal diarrhea, including blaming *U.S.* Rep. Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *Arizona* Veterans Home. His pieces can be found here, here, here, and here.
Some of my previous pieces featuring Harper can be found here and here.
One really good thing about all this??
Right now, Jack Harper is the face and voice of the Arizona Republican Party.
God, I wish the 2008 elections were today. :)
Continuing edit:
If you want to read his entire statement, please follow the above link to Sonoran Alliance.
I'll just post one quote from his closing (emphasis mine):
Now after the dust has settled, reporters have opined that I should have known Alan Stephans’ history in the AZScam scandal. I have better things to do than to gossip about the past of the Governor’s staff, specifically, looking out for the veterans.
So then why did you do it, and why are you so unapologetic about it, Senator Harper?
I caught part of today's hearing on AzCT. He referred to his question to Mr. Stephens as an innocent, "random" question and, as with the Sonoran Alliance post, continued to criticize the Democratic members of the joint committee for their behavior while proclaiming that his own was purely innocent.
Harper's still clueless as to how much he has embarrassed himself, his district, and the legislature. Nor does he seem to have *any* concern for the disservice he did to the state home's elderly veterans with his cheaply partisan witch-hunt tactics and contempt for the witnesses.
End edit.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)