The GOP has a new/old dance move - the IOKIYAR two-step

It's hardly a new thing for them, but now they're applying it to judicial ethics.

From AP, dated 5/2/2023 -

Overhaul of Supreme Court ethics runs into GOP opposition

Senate Democrats promised Tuesday to pursue stronger ethics rules for the 

Supreme Court in the wake of reports that Justice Clarence Thomas 

participated in luxury vacations and a real estate deal with a top GOP donor. 

Republicans made clear they strongly oppose the effort.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 

said lax ethical standards have created a lack of public confidence in the 

nation’s highest court.

“The Supreme Court could step up and fix this themselves,” Durbin said as 

he opened the hearing. “For years, they have refused, and because the 

court will not act, Congress must.”

Republicans, however, criticized the hearing as an effort to destroy the

 reputation of Thomas, one of the staunchest conservative voices on the 

court. Their comments showed how unlikely it is that Congress will pass 

legislation on the matter, with the parties worlds apart when it comes to 

the credibility of the Supreme Court, particularly after the seismic 

decision last June that overturned abortion rights.

There *is* a partisan division on the subject of  ethics for justices on the Supreme Court.

From The Hill -

Pence vows to stand behind ‘principled jurist’ Clarence Thomas amid scrutiny

Former Vice President Mike Pence vowed to stand behind Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Saturday, as the justice faces criticism cent reports about his close relationship with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow.

“Ever since his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 Justice Thomas has been maliciously attacked by the Left, including by then Sen. Joe Biden,” Pence tweeted. “The attacks on his character are continuing today, and it’s appalling to see.” 

Thomas’ nomination hearings, which were led by then-Sen. Joe Biden as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were particularly fraught due to sexual harassment allegations made by Anita Hill. Hill worked with Thomas at the Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“I stand with Justice Clarence Thomas and call on every American to join me in defending this good man and principled jurist,” Pence added. 

It's not just Pence, either. 

From Roll Call, dated 5/2/2023 -

Senate panel splits on power to force Supreme Court ethics code

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent a hearing Tuesday making the case for legislation that would put the Supreme Court under an ethics code if the justices didn’t do so themselves, but witnesses were split as to whether Congress has the power to do so.

The backers of proposed bills argued that the justices have waited for too long to impose their own ethics code, exemplified by recent reports about undisclosed luxury trips and a real estate transaction Justice Clarence Thomas received from a billionaire GOP donor.

.

.

.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said creating an ethics code for the court may create a “cottage industry” of advocates filing ethics complaints in cases strategically, making it “ripe for seeding the field with politicization of the Supreme Court.”

Tillis said he could not imagine the Founding Fathers supporting such a check on the justices.

“That seems to be far afield from anything the Founding Fathers would have considered appropriate,” Tillis said.

.

.

.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the committee, said he would oppose any effort by Congress to legislate ethical rules for the Supreme Court and called Democrats' concerns part of a “concentrated effort” to undermine the court more broadly.

.

.

.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., drew parallels between Tuesday’s hearing and Democrats’ opposition to Judge Robert Bork’s failed Supreme Court nomination in the 1980s, the “high-tech lynching” of Thomas during his initial confirmation and opposition to recent Republican-appointed justices.

.

.

.

In a floor speech Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tied Democrats’ concerns to decades of dissatisfaction with Republican judges.

Clarence Thomas, and other Republican judges with ethics problems, can always count on other Rs to protect them from accountability for their actions.

From a HuffPost article on the subject, dated 5/1/2023 -

.

.

.

Thomas has also repeatedly failed to file financial disclosures properly. In 2011, he reportedly failed to disclose the income that his wife, Ginni Thomas, received from a mix of conservative think tanks, political groups and educational entities over 13 years.

Despite all of this, Republican senators seem content to let the nation’s highest court carry on as it currently is. Some are dismissing Democrats’ latest efforts as purely political. Some argue it wouldn’t be constitutional for lawmakers to meddle in the court’s affairs.

“Ohhh, I don‘t know about that,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said of Murkowski’s proposal. “Separation of powers?”

“There’s a reason the separate branches of government were established,” said [Sen. Cynthia] Lummis [R-WY]. “Good heavens, they’re judges. This is something they can and should do on their own.”

[Sen Chuck] Grassley [R-IA] said it would be “inappropriate and unnecessary” for senators to take any action to impose ethics rules on Supreme Court justices because of the new disclosure regulations put in place for federal courts last month.

Respect for the Supreme Court, or any other court, for that matter, is based primarily on its credibility.

And Chief Justice John Roberts' diligence in protecting his court and fomenting a culture of corruption there on serves to undermine the credibility of *all* US courts.

RBB: State Sen. Don Shooter invades a school and buys a complete pass

From the Arizona Republic, written by Laurie Roberts -

Sen. Don Shooter dodged a bullet late last week. Or rather, he bought the ammo before it could be used to zap him.

Shooter is one of the more colorful characters at the state Capitol, a two-term tea party patriot best known for his penchant for wearing weird hats. Mention his name around the Legislature and you’ll be regaled with the tale of the time he showed up in costume for a special session held to extend unemployment benefits.

{snip}

Which is perhaps how he came to be barging into a Yuma high school classroom in March, confronting a teacher and demanding that she stop everything to answer his questions.

{snip}

In June, Shooter was charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and interference with or disruption of an educational institution. He hired Ed Novak, one of the state’s elite attorneys, a lawyer whom I imagine doesn’t spend much time in municipal court.

Apparently, it was a good move because on Friday, the Yuma city prosecutor dropped the charges. This, provided Shooter stays out of trouble for a year, pays $1,500 in restitution to the school and forks over a $1,000 “deferred prosecution fee” to the city of Yuma.

No admission of guilt and no penalty – other than the payoff required in order to buy his way out of a prosecution and possible conviction.

Filed under "IOKIYARw/$".

For new readers: "IOKIYARw/$" means "It's OK If You're A Republican with money".


Court record:

"Destroy file"?  Say what?

It's bad enough that Shooter bought his way out of this, but to scrub his behavior from the official history, apparently because he is an "important" (his word, not mine) public official?

That may be a crime that's worse that what Shooter did.



Full story on the dismissal from the Yuma Sun here.

Vent time: False equivalency

...Not that I've ever been accused of being overly eloquent or tactful, but this is definitely not going to be a post for those with tender sensibilities...

When it comes to assessing bad behavior, one of the favorite rhetorical conceits of two major political demographic groups in the US, the politically conservative and the politically lazy, is that of equating bad behavior by individual Democrats with the bad behavior of Republican elected officials, party apparatchiks, and their base.

The politically conservative do it because they understand that using the bad behavior of individual Ds to tar Ds as a group might serve to diminish the impact of the tarring of individual Rs with the bad behavior of Rs as a group.

The politically lazy do it because it's easier than actually observing and analyzing actions and policies for themselves.  You know, actually being civically engaged.

Early this past week, former president George W. Bush went into a hospital for a heart-related procedure (he had a stent put in to unblock an artery).  He received well wishes from people across the political spectrum and across the world (Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin chimed in...just not at the same time :) ).

However, many of the online stories received comments that were something other than "well wishes".  Most of the comment threads contain postings that wish continued ill health or even death upon Bush.  Other postings are milder, but indicate a distinct lack of sympathy for him.

One person who I deeply respect and care for, someone who is highly intelligent and (usually) highly perceptive, took in all of this on Tuesday morning and whipped off an email expressing outrage, and...wait for it...that the hate-filled expressions of anonymous individuals on the internet is proof that Democrats as a group are as filled with hate as Republicans as a group.

I spent the rest of Tuesday morning trying to come up with a response that was appropriately reasoned and thoughtful.

Then Tuesday afternoon hit, and nothing I could come up with was going to top the reality that is the state of "discourse" among the Republicans.

From Talking Points Memo, written by Perry Stein -

As President Barack Obama spoke in Phoenix Tuesday about responsible home ownership, hundreds of people stood outside protesting his policies, many shouting and carrying racially charged chants and signs.

"Bye Bye Black Sheep," the protestors shouted at one point, a reference to the president's skin color, according to the Arizona Republic.

Another protestor carried a sign that said "Impeach the Half-White Muslim!"

“He’s 47 percent Negro,” one protestor shouted.

“We have gone back so many years,” Judy Burris told the Republic. “He’s divided all the races. I hate him for that.”

Just a couple of points here, and this is where things get a little blunt.

1.  There are those who will try to claim that the bigotry shown by the protesters at the President's appearance in Ahwatukee was an isolated event that is hardly reflective of the demeanor and actions of Republican elected officials.  They will be lying.

2.  The anonymous rantings of morons on the internet don't reflect upon the entirety of Democrats in America any more than they reflect upon the entirety of Republicans.

3.  We (meaning Democrats) have our share of, oh, what's the technical term?  Oh yeah - freakin' loons at the fringes, as well as officeholders who bring great shame to their offices.  So do the Republicans.  The difference being that where we marginalize our loons and power abusers, they lionize theirs.

And when one (or more) of ours steps out of line, we call them on it - witness the sexual harassment complaints lodged against Democrat Bob Filner, mayor of San Diego, and the growing calls, by Democrats, for him to resign from office.

Compare this to the thunderous silence from the Right over the revelations surrounding AZ Attorney General Tom Horne and his pattern of giving his girlfriends taxpayer-funded jobs.

4.  Enough already.  I consider myself to be a pretty even-keeled kind of guy, but the next person who pontificates on how Democrats and Republicans are the same is going to hear three words from me. 

Bullshit.  Prove it.


And when they don't prove it, and they won't, I'm going to look them in the eye, call them a liar, turn my back upon them, and walk away.

Short attention span musing

...Congressman Darrell Issa and the Republicans have been conducting a major witch hunt into the attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

If I thought that they were legitimately interested in preventing the unnecessary loss of American lives or addressing the safety of American diplomatic personnel, I could actually support the "inquiry".

However, given the huge number of attacks on US embassies during the Bush Administration that took place with little more than a peep from the Rs, the thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis) who have died in Halliburton's Wars for Enhanced Profits with nothing more than drumbeats for higher body counts from the Rs, and the 14 dead and 200 or so injured when a Texas fertilizer plant exploded after decades of neglect of safety measures without any interest in finding the root cause of the disaster and prevent future disasters expressed by the Rs, well, it's obvious that saving lives or preserving safety isn't the primary goal of Issa and the rest.

Smearing the current administration and presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is.

Wonder if the witch hunt would be so...so...so...*enthusiastic*...if instead of the American taxpayer footing the bill, the actual beneficiary, the Republican National Committee had to pay for it?


...On this week's edition of Sunday Square Off on Phoenix channel 12, political consultant Chip Scutari predicted that current AZSOS Ken Bennett, who is "exploring" a run for governor next year, will instead challenge fellow Republican Paul Gosar for the CD4 seat and current AZ House speaker Andy Tobin (R-Paulden) will challenge Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick in CD1.

Couldn't find any open committees yet, but each prediction, if accurate, makes a bit of sense.

Bennett faces a Republican primary regardless of the office he goes after.  The race for governor is a statewide race and his power base is in Yavapai County; 75% of the state's population is in Maricopa and Pima counties.  The CD4 race is a "district" race where not being from Maricopa or Pima county might actually help him win against Gosar, who is still viewed as a bit of a carpetbagger in the district.

Tobin is termed-out of the House and has to run for something else.  There were a few whispers that he was looking at a run for governor, like Bennett above.  However, like Bennett above, while he has a strong base of support in Yavapai County, that may not be a strong or broad enough foundation for a statewide run.  On the other hand, that base could set him up well for a run at a northern AZ Congressional district.

...The biggest story of the last week was news breaking out of an IRS office in Cincinnati that certain groups may have been targeted for extra scrutiny if the name of the group included words like "tea party" or "patriot".  Unsurprisingly, Republicans are outraged at the idea that conservative groups are subject to scrutiny because they are politically conservative. 

However, lost in their histrionics is the outrage of liberals, from the President down to the humblest of bloggers.  We all have seen liberal groups targeted for "special" treatment, from J. Edgar Hoover "investigating" everybody who was to the political left of Adolph Hitler to the recent partisan jihad against ACORN.  We know how abhorrently un-American and how damaging such ideologically-motivated witch hunts are.

If it turns out that there was some deliberate malfeasance, a deliberate violation of the American ideal of freedom of expression here, the IRS employees involved and everyone in their chain of command who knew of their misdeeds should lose their jobs.  At a minimum.

...Another story, perhaps one that may more genuinely represent a serious violation of an American ideal, this one of the freedom and independence of the press, broke Monday.

From the Associated Press, written by Mark Sherman - 

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

 

The AP letter protesting the Department of Justice's unprecedently broad intrusion is here.

Ummm...I don't know what to say about this that hasn't already been said, and far more eloquently than I'm able to, but let me advise any member of the DOJ who was a party to this to take a refresher course on the American Constitution and civil rights.

MIT offers one here.

Harvard Law School offers a number of related lectures here.

There are others out there if you think that MIT and Harvard aren't good enough.

 

 

Ummm2...OK, so it isn't going to be eloquent, but let me say this: the people at DOJ who were a part of this should join the IRS employees above in the unemployment line.  At a minimum.

Shooter claims he frightened teacher and students because of concern over bullying; doesn't realize the irony

When reports surfaced that he stormed into a school in Yuma, scaring a teacher and a classroom full of students, State Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma) chose to remain silent, declining to comment when reporters contacted him.

He changed his mind on Friday.

From the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Ben Giles -

A visibly upset Sen. Don Shooter entered a classroom against a school official’s will and verbally confronted a teacher during class, frightening the students and the teacher, Yuma police reported.

 

The teacher is pursuing an assault charge against the senator, according to the police report.

 

Shooter initially declined to comment.   This morning, he issued a statement saying:  “Don Shooter, as a concerned grandfather, went to his grandson’s school to discuss several incidents of alleged bullying by a teacher. Mr. Shooter has since spoken to the principal and both parties are working to help his grandson.”

That's niiiiiice.

Here it is, March of 2013, and there's a grandfather who is willing to go to any length, face any foe, no matter how young or how frightened, to protect his (allegedly) bullied grandson.

Of course, in March of 2012, that grandfather was nowhere to be found when SB1462 came to a vote.

[cue up the irony]

That bill was designed to address bullying in schools.

[end irony]

Apparently, Shooter's grandson wasn't an issue in 2012; Shooter voted against the measure.


Now, Arizona's Republicans shouldn't fret - this incident, no matter how it plays out, shouldn't affect Shooter's work in the state senate.  He probably won't lose his committee chairmanship.

After all, he's the chair of the Senate "Appropriations" Committee, not the Senate "Appropriate Behavior" Committee.


Note1:  If such a committee actually existed, they'd have to dig deep to find enough Rs to serve on the committee.

Note2: In 2012, SB1462 passed the Arizona Senate, only to be publicly, and painfully, killed by lobbyist/unelected but de facto legislator Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy.

Who has been busy this year, too.

Sen. Don Shooter interrupts a class to confront a teacher

State Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma), who famously displayed his "charm" in 2011 when he showed up at a special session of the legislature in a costume of a serape, sombrero, and gun holster with a bottle of tequila.

Now, he has loosed his charm closer to home, and the Yuma Police Department is investigating.

From the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Ben Giles -

Yuma Police have confirmed they are investigating a complaint that state Sen. Don Shooter went into a Yuma charter school and confronted a teacher.

 

Sgt. Leanne Worthen, a public affairs officer for the Yuma Police Department, told the Arizona Capitol Times that police were called at approximately 3 p.m. Friday with a report that a man had entered the EOC Charter School in Yuma and verbally confronted a teacher at approximately 9:30 a.m.

 

Worthen confirmed that the man in question was Shooter, R-Yuma. No arrests have been made and no charges have been filed against the senator, and the investigation into the incident remains open, Worthen said.

According to the Cap Times' story, Shooter "got past" a school employee on door duty and interrupted a class to confront the teacher who was the target of his ire.

Even if charges are ultimately filed against Shooter (hardly a sure thing), based on the Cap Times' report, any charges will be low-level ones, and legislators still have immunity from arrest on misdemeanor charges during the legislative session.  Even after being thoroughly criticized over the matter when former state senator Scott Bundgaard invoked that immunity to avoid arrest after his infamous 2011 domestic violence "incident".

...Wonder if all of this will impact Shooter's votes on the various legislative proposals to turn schools into armed encampments? 

More to come...maybe. 

AZ House Speaker Tobin calls Chad Campbell "insincere" and "immature"...

...and says Campbell should have cleared his proposal to address the epidemic of gun violence sweeping the state and nation with Tobin first.

On Sundays here in AZ, like most of the country, local TV stations broadcast their political or public affairs programming, usually early in the morning.

Phoenix station KPNX (Channel 12 to those folks who aren't into alphabet soup early in the morning) broadcasts a program called "Sunday Square Off" at 8 a.m. local time.  The host is Brahm Resnick, a recently naturalized Canadian immigrant.  He's pretty even-handed, letting his guests say what they're going to say without interfering with them, but not afraid to press someone for details when they are being vague on an issue (given that he usually deals with politicians, that happens.  Frequently. :) ).

The show, while aired on Sunday, is recorded on Friday, which means that Resnick and his station can post teasers and previews on Saturday.

Which they did this week, here.

A transcript of the relevent part of the teaser -

Resnick - Now do you doubt his sincerity?

Tobin - Oh well sure, this is about him running for governor.  I'm very disappointed and it's immature..."here's my plan" and all you press guys show up and they put microphones in his face.  So he gets attention and that's OK.  Well how about picking up the phone and saying "hey Andy, what about something like this?"

Something tells me that the upcoming session of the lege will be a long and contentious one, judging by the fact that the Republican leadership is already resorting to name-calling.

Oh, and the leader of the caucus that barely acknowledges the existence of, much less deigns to speak to, Democratic members of the House and their constituents, whining about it when somebody doesn't talk to *him*?

Is there such a term as "operational hypocrisy"?  If not, there is now, and Tobin is serving up a big steaming pile of it...

The Republicans like to chirp about "voter fraud". What's their stance on "candidate fraud"?

Republicans all over the country have been crying wolf voter fraud to rationalize their efforts to suppress the voting rights of minorities.  The fact that the number of cases is actually miniscule is irrelevent.  They aren't trying to address the alleged problem that they are citing.

They're trying to make voting more difficult for eligible voters from groups that tend to support Democratic candidates, namely the poor and minorities.

One thing that they haven't been crying about is candidate fraud.

To whit, from the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Hank Stephenson -

Political newcomer Darin Mitchell defeated an incumbent legislator in the Aug. 28 primary election, but it appears he never should have been on the ballot because he lives in a home outside Legislative District 13.

 

Mitchell claimed in a sworn affidavit that he lives in a 3,600-square-foot home on a golf course in Litchfield Park. In reality, the home is vacant, with mattresses covering the front windows, a construction dumpster in the driveway and construction permits taped to the window. Neighbors say the house has been empty for at least a year, and a contractor working on the home confirmed nobody lives there.

Oopsie.

In 2010, a Republican attempted a similar stunt, trying to run for a legislative seat in District 17 (central and north Tempe and south Scottsdale) while living in District 20 (south Tempe, Ahwatukee, and a bit of Chandler).  One of the then-vice chairs of the AZGOP, Augustus Shaw, lived in south Tempe with his wife and family, but claimed that he actually resided in the home of his in-laws in central Tempe.

When called on it, he claimed that he did it for his autistic son.

Yeah, I know what you are thinking, and the judge didn't buy it either.  Shaw was thrown off of the ballot.

On the bright side, however, at least Shaw actually picked an address where people lived; apparently, Darin Mitchell has couldn't be bothered to put in that much research time, and picked a nearly uninhabitable structure for his address.

One would think that they would have learned the lesson from 2010, but apparently, one would think wrong.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but whatever else happens, don't expect Mitchell to face criminal charges - the Arizona Attorney General and Arizona Secretary of State, people who might be expected to weigh on criminal proceedings in matters like this, are Republicans who are known for placing a higher value on partisan affiliation than on the law.

Frank Antenori: just serving it up

Southern AZ bloggers have been needling state Sen. Frank "Don't Make Me Mad" Antenori over his efforts to outlaw photo radar traffic enforcement in light of his penchant for getting caught by photo radar cameras committing one or another violation.

Michael Bryan at Blog for Arizona has one jab here, and Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has a jab here, and here, and here.  OK, that last one isn't about photo radar or Antenori's driving, but it is metaphorically about radar, and it's definitely a needle.  Tedski's been on a roll.  :)

Anyway, I was going to pass on this one, content to let my colleagues from southern AZ work their magic on one of their own (Antenori represents part of Tucson), but after watching a little video, I saw that Antenori has been bringing his scofflaw ways to my part of the desert, Scottsdale.

The Tucson Weekly has video of Antenori consciously running a red light in Scottsdale ("consciously" because he slowed down at the intersection, saw the other stopped traffic, and rolled right through the intersection).

Antenori exhibits a pattern of disregard for the traffic laws that apply to the rest of us, a pattern that goes far beyond his running of a red light in Scottsdale (the above video).

...He just "cleared up" a photo radar speeding ticket in the Pima County justice court system.  He failed to appear, resulting in the Court ordering the suspension of his driver's license.  However, the state Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) claimed that they were never notified and so never suspended the license. 

They say it was an honest mistake, but the cynic in me wonders if it is more an exercise is spineless geography - the judge's office is 100+ miles and a couple of hours away from MVD; Antenori's office is 100+ steps and a couple of minutes away from MVD.

And Antenori exercises some influence over their budget.

I've been told I'm being too cynical on this one, that this sort of thing happens far more often than it should, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Anyway, I digress...

...He also has the ticket from the violation documented in the linked video, pending in Scottsdale Municipal Court (R-0751-PR-2012005658)

...In 2006, he received a parking ticket in Tucson (Tucson Municipal Court, M-1041-PK-400661180)

...In 2007, he received a traffic ticket in Tucson (Tucson Municipal Court, M-1041-TR-7054839), and cleared it with a defensive driving course

...In 2008, he received another traffic ticket in Tucson (Tucson Municipal Court, M-1041-TR-8041742), and paid a fine

That's what I could find with a quick online search.  Many courts in AZ and elsewhere don't have an online presence, but even this is more than enough to establish the pattern.

Frank Antenori is running for Congress, and apparently he puts "scofflaw" in the job description for his senior campaign staff.

He's hired Brett Mecum, the disgraced former executive director of the AZGOP, for his campaign staff.

Mecum is the one who was arrested at AZGOP headquarters after photo radar caught him driving more than 40 mph over the speed limit on a Phoenix freeway (I think that mug shot photographers hone their skills by taking driver's license photos) 






Mecum also ran into trouble for his use of the GOP's "Voter Vault" (info on registered voters to aid in targeted campaigning) to find out information about a woman he was stalking.

...Given all this, will anybody really be surprised if Antenori makes the song "Working on the Chain Gang" his campaign theme song?  Now, the estate of Sam Cooke may object, but that's never stopped R candidates from ripping off musical artists...

Baseball and politics: The games inside the games

In honor of MLB's All Star Game coming to Phoenix next week...

Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.

One example of that is "working the umpires."

In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game.  Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that. 

That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.

It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.

In politics, much the same activity takes place.

Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts.  The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.

The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.

The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.

In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.

Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.

Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.

Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.

The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running.  That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators.  However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind.  He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.

The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission.  It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.

The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant.  ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.

The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle.  The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.

Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle.  Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.

Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.

From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -

Each member shall be a registered Arizona voter who has been continuously registered with the same political party or registered as unaffiliated with a political party for three or more years immediately preceding appointment, who is committed to applying the provisions of this section in an honest, independent and impartial fashion and to upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. Within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee.

Nothing is mentioned about spouses in the constitutional requirements, nor are there any questions relating to the involvement of spouses in campaign in the application for the Commission.

However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.

Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.

Even though it wasn't true.

And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate.  One does work for him though.

Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process. 

Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting. 

At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.

Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).

Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed.  Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.

Later...

Aiming at President Obama, the Republicans may take out the Donald, too...

The Republicans in the Arizona Legislature have revived their "birther" bill (strikers to HB2177 and SB1157) in an attempt to play up to the "birther" wing of their own party, people who insist that the first African-American president must have been born in Africa, not Hawaii.

The striker to HB2177 was approved by the Senate Rules committee on Monday and is scheduled for caucus consideration on Tuesday, setting it up for floor action this week or next.

The striker to SB1157 is awaiting a hearing before House Rules.

The strangely interesting part has been watching the various Republican contenders/pretenders for the race for the presidency try to jump on the birther bandwagon.

It's especially interesting when one of those would-be bandwagon jumpers misjudge their leap and smacks his chin on the wagon's gate -

The most recent example: Donald Trump, who released his birth certificate on Monday after going on Fox News (where else? :) ) to roll in the birther muck.

One problem - the birth certificate released by Trump isn't a legal birth certificate.

From The Smoking Gun (hat tip to Taegan Goddard's PoliticalWire for this) -

“It’s inconceivable that, after four years of questioning, the president still hasn’t produced his birth certificate,” Trump told Newsmax. “I’m just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why’s he making an issue out of this?" To prove how easy it was for a household employee to find his birth certificate, Trump, 64, crowed, “It took me one hour to get my birth certificate.”


As seen above, he provided the conservative web site with what he purports to be his birth certificate.

Except the document is not an official New York City birth certificate, but rather a document generated by Jamaica Hospital, where Trump’s mother Mary reportedly gave birth in June 1946. Official birth certificates are issued (and maintained) by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Office of Vital Records.

Oopsie.

Bundgaard in full spin mode

State Sen. Scott Bundgaard (R-Domestic Violence Incident) has spent most of the week trying to keep his positions as a state senator and as Republican majority leader in the state senate.

Thus far, he has been successful (barely!) at fending off moves to replace him as majority leader and has not even hinted that he is repentant enough to resign his position.

However, the sharks are circling, and instead of maintain a quiet profile, he has been churning up the waters, putting out outlandish press releases and giving dubious interviews.

His PR flack put out a press release loudly proclaiming that Bundgaard had "aced" a polygraph test administered by someone hired by the Bundgaard camp (the Arizona Republic's EJ Montini has his take here; Donna at Democratic Diva has her take here; Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has his take here.)

Then on Friday, he sat down with Laurie Roberts, another Arizona Republic columnist and gave an interview where he presented a gun in a plastic baggy, claiming that it was the gun that his now ex-girlfriend Aubry Ballard pulled on his during the infamous incident on SR-51 two weeks ago.

He even did this in front of a camera crew from KPNX, Phoenix channel 12 (the Republic and KPNX are both owned by Gannett).

Now, I'm not overly familiar with police evidence handling protocols (and I actually consider that to be a good thing), but it seems strange that they would give a vital piece of evidence in the investigation of a possible serious crime to one of the people involved in that possible crime.

A fact serving to further undermine Bundgaard's credibility is the fact that a gun isn't mentioned *anywhere* in the police report about the incident.

Another fact serving to undermine his credibility is that the story of a "gun" didn't come out until pressure from his own Republican colleagues to step aside as majority leader came to a head on Tuesday during a closed-door meeting called to discuss his status.

During the video shown on KPNX, Bundgaard and his flack promised that more facts on the incident would come out next week.

Given the way that his "facts" are destroying his political future, perhaps Bundgaard should fire his current PR flack and hire one whose one and only instruction to Bundgaard is -

SHUT THE [BLEEP] UP!

Jus' sayin'...

Schweikert votes to protect oil companies

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

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

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

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

So what did he do?

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

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

Of course.

More Bundgaard info getting out there....

Right now, I'm betting the State Sen. Scott Bundgaard (R-LD4) is rueing the day that the internet was invented, because the reports surrounding his domestic violence incident are going viral.

Now, the Phoenix New Times' Stephen Lemons has posted the police reports related to Bundgaard's fight with his now ex-girlfriend, Aubry Ballard, and those reports show that while Bundgaard has been consistent about blaming the fight on Ballard, citing her "jealousy," a witness' independent recounting of the part of the events that he saw corroborates Ballard's story.

In addition to that, the responding officer recommended that Bundgaard face charges once the legislative session is completed.

Note:  According to KPNX's late newscast on Wednesday, charges have been dropped against Aubry Ballard.
I wonder if that development has anything to do with the fact the the independent witness' account most closely resembled Ballard's account, not Bundgaard's.

See below.

From the officers' reports.

First up, Officer Patterson (their ALL CAPS, and most of the typos are theirs, too) -

I ASKED SCOTT WHY HE HAD PULLED OVER ONTO THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY AND HE STATED THE FOLLOWING.  SCOTT WAS OUT AT A CHARITY EVENT WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND OF 8 MONTHS AP1 AUBRY BALLARD AND DECIDED TO LEAVE.  IT WAS LATER FOUND THAT AUBRY SPENDS THE NIGHT AT SCOTTS HOUSE ALMOST EVERY WEEKEND.  SCOTT WAS DRIVING AUBRY TO HIS PARENTS HOUSE BECAUSE AUBRY HAD LEFT HER CAR PARKED THERE.  SCOTT SAID  AUBRY WAS UPSET THAT HE WAS DANCING WITH ANOTHER WOMEN DURING THE EVENT.  SCOTT SAID AUBRY WAS MAKING STATEMENTS THAT HE DIDN'T LOVER HER ANYMORE AND BEGAN TO YELL AT HIM.  SCOTT STATED THAT AUBRY SAID SHE WAS GOING TO JUMP OUT OF THE CAR INTO TRAFFIC AS THEY WERE DRIVING NORTH BOUND ON THE SR-51.  SCOTT SAID AUBRY THREW HIS SUIT OUT OF THE WINDOW JUST AS THEY PASSED SHEA BOULDEVARD.  SCOTT ALSO STATED THAT AUBRY HIT HIM SEVERAL TIMES IN THE FACE AND TRIED TO GRAB THE STEERING WHEEL AND CRASH THE VEHICLE INTO THE CEMENT MEDIAN.  SCOTT STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND GOT OUT TO RETRIEVE HIS SUIT AND WHEN HE WAS RETURNING TO HIS VEHICLE AUBRY GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND CONTINUED TO THROW ITEMS ONTO THE FREEWAY AND TRIED TO PUT AUBRY BACK INTO THE VEHICLE.  SCOTT STATED THAT HE WAS A STATE SENATOR.  I SAW SCOTT'S RIGHT EYE WAS BRUISED AND HAD A SMALL CUT UNDERNEATH IT.  SCOTT'S LIP WAS ALSO SWOLLEN AND HE POINTED TO WHERE THE TOP BUTTON ON HIS SHIRT WAS BUT SAID AUBRY RIPPED IT OPEN AND THE BUTTON FELL OFF.  SCOTT ALSO HAD A SMALL CUT UNDERNEATH HIS NOSE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HIS FACE.

SCOTT WAS PLACED INTO THE BACK OF A DPS PATROL VEHICLE AND AUBRY WAS PLANCE IN ANOTHER ONE.  BOTH PARTIES WERE TRANSPORTED OFF THE FREEWAY TO THE PARK PARKING LOT AT 3500 EAST CACTUS ROAD FOR THEIR SAFETY.  I DROVE SCOTTS VEHICLE TO THAT LOCATION AS MY PARTNER FOLLOWED ME IN THE PATROL VEHICLE.

UPON ARRIVAL AT THE PARK I PLACED SCOTT IN THE BACK OF MY PATROL VEHICLE AND TOOK HIS HANDCUFFS OFF.  SINCE SCOTT STATED THAT HE WAS A STATE SENATOR AND THAT HE WAS IN SESSION, MY SUPERVISOR SERGEANT RODARME #6999 CONTACTED THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION.  AT 2347 HOURS I READ SCOTT HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS AND ADVISED HIM THAT HE WAS NOT UNDER ARREST BUT STILL UNDER INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION.  SCOTT REPLIED "YES" WHEN ASKED IF HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS BUT SAID HE WOULD NOT ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITHOUT HIS LAWYER PRESENT.

SGT RODARME WAS ADVISED BY OUR ON DUTY LEGAL ATTORNEY THAT UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT IF THE SENATE WAS IN SESSION AND UNLESS SCOTT COMMITTED TREASON OF BREACH OF THE PEACE THEN HE WAS IMMUNE TO ARREST.  IT WAS VERIFIED THAT LEGISLATION WAS IN SESSION.

I CONTACTED W1 RICH MAIOCCO BY TELEPHONE AND HE STATED THE FOLLOWING.  RICH WAS ENTERING THE SR-51 NORTH BOUND FROM SHEA BOULEVARD WHEN HE WITNESSED A GOLD COLORED SEDAN PARKED NEXT TO THE CEMENT MEDIAN.  RICH SAID HE WITNESSED A MAN PUSHING OR PULLING A FEMALE NEXT TO THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR OF THE GOLD COLORED SEDAN.  RICH ALSO STATED THAT THE FEMALE FELL TO THE GROUND NEAR THE PASSENGER DOOR WHILE THE MALE HAD HIS HANDS ON HER.  RICH IS WILLING TO TESTIFY AND CAN IDENTIFY THE MALE AND FEMALE.

OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT SENATOR BUNDGAARD WAS IMMUNE FROM THIS CRIME.  I REMOVED SCOTT FROM THE BACK OF MY VEHICLE AND HIS INJURIES WERE PHOTOGRAPHED BY OFC GRABER #9448.  OFC GRABER ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED AUBRY'S INJURIES.  BASED ON SENATOR BUNDGAARD'S POSITION HE WAS RELEASED.  HIS GIRLFRIEND AUBRY WAS BOOKED INTO 4TH AVENUE JAIL FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSAULT.  I AM REQUESTING THAT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSAULT CHARGE BE SUBMITTED ON SENATOR BUNDGAARD WHEN THE LEGISLATION IS NOT IN SESSION.  PLEASE REFER TO OFC WERNER #9412 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING AUBRY'S STATEMENT.  SCOTT DOES NOT DESIRE PROSECUTION AND WILL NOT TESTIFY AGAINST AUBRY.

Aubry Ballard's story was somewhat different.  From Officer Werner's report -

ON 022611 AT APPROXIMATELY 2319 HOURS, I RESPONDED AS ONE MAN UNIT RADIO CALL LOCATED ON NORTH PIESTEWA PARKWAY JUST OF EAST CACTUS ROAD ON THE NORTHBOUND SIDE OF THE FREEWAY.

UPON ARRIVING, I FOUND SP1 SCOTT BUNDGAARD AND AP1 AUBRY BALLARD.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFETY, THE TWO SUBJECTS AND THE VEHICLE WERE MOVE TO 11229 NORTH 36TH STREET IN THE PARKING LOT.

UPON ARRIVING, I ASKED AUBRY TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENT.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MS BALLARD AND SENATOR BUNDGAARD HAVE AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WHERE MS BALLARD FREQUENTLY STAYS THE NIGHT ON WEEKENDS AT SENATOR BUNDGAARD'S RESIDENCE.  THEY HAVE BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP FOR APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MONTHS.

MS BALLARD STATED THAT ON 022611 AT APPROXIMATELY 2319 HOURS, SENATOR BUNDGAARD WAS IN THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT OF THE VEHICLE AND MS BALLARD WAS IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT.  THEY WERE IN THE CARPOOL LANE GOING NORTHBOUD ON THE I-51 OR THE PIESTEWA PARKWAY JUST BEFORE THE CACTUS ROAD EXIT.  SHE SAID THAT THEY VERBALLY ARGUING WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING.  DURING  THE ARGUMENT, SENATOR BUNDGAARD USED HIS RIGHT ARM IN A SWINGING MOTION AND HIT MS BALLARD OVER HER CHEST.  THE STRIKE CAUSED BRUISING ON THE LEFT UPPER CHEST AREA OF MS BALLARD.  MS BALLARD STATE THAT HE STRUCK HER TWICE.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MS BALLARD DENIED ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR HER INJURIES.

MS BALLARD THEN SAID. "YOU HIT ME" AND STRUCK SP1 BUNDGAARD IN THE FACE WITH HER LEFT ARM USING AN OPEN HAND.  MS BALLARD ATTEMPTED TO THEN USE HER PHONE TO CALL HER PARENTS FOR SOME HELP.  SP1 BUNDGAARD GRABBED HER PHONE OUT OF HER HAND AND THREW IT OUT OF HIS DRIVER SIDE WINDOW.  MS BALLARD STATED THAT AFTER 20 TO 30 SECOND, SENATOR BUNDGAARD STOPPED THE VEHICLE IN THE INSIDE SHOULDER OF THE NORTHBOUND CARPOOL LANE TO GO BACK FOR HER PHONE.  BOTH SUBJECTS LEFT THE VEHICLE AND WERE ATTEMPTING TO FIND HER PHONE WHEN SENATOR BUNDGAARD RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE, THREATENING TO LEAVE MS BALLARD ON THE FREEWAY.  MS BALLARD WENT BACK TO THE VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTED TO OPEN THE DRIVER SIDE DOORS.  AFTER A FEW MOMENTS, SENATOR BUNDGAARD OPENED THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR AND PUSHED MS BALLARD TO THE GROUND WITH A TWO HANDED IMPACT PUSH, MAKING HER FALL TO THE GROUND CAUSING A LACERATION ON HER RIGHT KNEE AND A CAUSED A SCRAPE ALSO ON HER RIGHT HAND.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MS BALLARD HAD DIFFICULTY REMEMBERING ALL THE DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT, BUT SHE STATED THAT HE PUSHED HER DOWN AT LEAST TWICE.

AT THIS TIME, MS BALLARD WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST ON 022611 AT APPROXIMATELY 0046 HOURS.  MIRANDA WARNING WAS READ DIRECTLY FROM THE CARD AT 0048 HOURS.  MS BALLARD STATED YES TO UNDERSTANDING HER RIGHTS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING MS BALLARD'S STATEMENTS, PLEASE LOOK TO HER RECORDED STATEMENTS WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED AS EVIDENCE ON A CASSETTE TAPE AT DESERT HORIZON PRECINCT.

MS BALLARD THAT SHE DOES NOT WAS PROSECUTION AGAINST SENATOR BUNDGAARD.

MS BALLARD WAS BOOKED ON 13-1203A WHICH IS ASSAULT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.  SHE WAS PROCESSED AT DESERT HORIZON PRECINCT AND TRANSFERRED DOWN TO 4TH AVENUE JAIL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS REPORT, PLEASE LOOK TO THE ORIGINAL REPORT BY OFFICER PATTERSON #9314.

New Times coverage here, here, and here.

Bundgaard domestic violence incident update: Aubry Ballard is no longer with the program

State Sen. Scott Bundgaard was involved in a domestic violence incident Friday night, one that resulted in the arrest of his then-girlfriend Aubry Ballard while Bundgaard invoked legislative immunity to avoid arrest.

Bundgaard, though GOP PR guru Jason Rose, has issued a couple of press releases (like this one) on the matter, as well as speaking about the event on the Senate floor Monday.  In the press releases, he tried to paint the conflict as rooted in Ms. Ballard being jealous over Bungaard's participation in a knockoff version of "Dancing With The Stars" for charity.

Until Tuesday however, Ballard had remained silent.

That changed when she gave an interview to KPNX's (Phoenix channel 12) Brahm Resnik.

She cited long simmering "relationship problems" as at the root of the conflict between her and Bundgaard, not anything to do with "Dancing."

Not exactly in keeping with the Bundgaard/Rose script.

Note: I attempted to embed the video in this post, but the code wouldn't work here for some reason.
 
The Republican blog Sonoran Alliance has jumped in, utilizing a "it must be the woman's fault" tack - mentioning that she may have once posed for pictures in a bikini, and implying that she was intoxicated Friday night.
 
At least they have the KPNX interview.
 
Other videos related to this matter:
 
A YouTube video of a pre-charity event interview with Bundgaard and his dance partner, Rebecca Jowers -
 

 
A YouTube video of a practice session  -
 

 
Both of the above videos were posted by the Arizona Kidney Foundation.  There doesn't seem to be anything incriminating in them, but they serve as good background material.
 
A "night-of" YouTube video of the charity event from Trends Magazine.  Bundgaard doesn't appear in the video, except as a cardboard cut-out with a sign that reads "Will Dance 4 Votes." (at the 3:57 mark, approximately)
 
Given the amount of dancing that is going on over this incident, that's turning out to be rather prophetic...
 

 
Given the way that Bundgaard's story is falling apart, and the fact that people, like Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic, have noticed that the US Supreme Court has already ruled that "legislative immunity" clauses are invalid, does anyone want to put a number on how much time is left in his political career? 
 
The "domestic violence" angle may not be his undoing - that seems to be coming down to a "he said/she said" tie, but he is getting absolutely ravaged in public opinion over his invoking of legislative immunity so he could spend Friday night sleeping in his own bed while his soon-to-be former girlfriend curled up in a jail cell.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Bundgaard case: And the spin begins

By now, most observers of the Arizona political scene are aware of the fact that state Sen. Scott Bundgaard was involved in a domestic violence incident Friday and invoked his immunity from arrest as a serving legislator to avoid incarceration.

The Arizona Republic has coverage here, written by Connie Cone Sexton, with contributions from Mary K. Reinhart and Kristena Hansen.

The Arizona Capitol Times has AP coverage here.

My intent here isn't to rehash the story - I don't have any facts in this matter other than those in the Republic article.

Nor is it to bash Bundgaard in a partisan manner - Democrats aren't perfect in this regard...though if any had similarly invoked legislative immunity from arrest, I have absolutely no doubt that they'd have been raked over the coals in the RW blogosphere and by the columnists at the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star for doing so.

In addition, in the interests of fairness to all involved, I am going to wait until more facts come to light before passing judgement, and urge all other observers to do the same.

However, it is evident that all observers aren't of a similar mind.

KTAR.com has Bundgaard's rather self-serving press release on the incident here.  Note to Bundgaard:  "name dropping" isn't a viable defense.

Republican blog Seeing Red AZ isn't holding back, rising to Bundgaard's defense by attacking the integrity and professionalism of the reporters of the Republic story.  The comments section of their post show a similar ideologically-based disregard for the law (no matter if they aren't living together, violence between a boyfriend and girlfriend *is* "domestic violence") or for waiting for more facts to come to light.  They've blindly accepted the word of Bundgaard, given through his flack Jason Rose.

Republican blog Sonoran Alliance has a much briefer (and better) press release from Rose over the names of Bundgaard and the woman in the incident, Aubry Ballard.  In it, they apologize to everyone, announce that they are going their "separate ways," and ask for privacy.  It's still self-serving, but in a lower-key manner.

To be sure, some of the uninformed angst is coming from the other side - the comments on the Facebook posting from 12News on the story are mostly divided into two categories.

1.  "If it is a domestic violence case, the man must be 100% at fault."  Until we know all of the facts, we don't know *who* is at fault.  My initial reading of the story is that both were dishing out the violence, and both should have been arrested.  And that the police who responded to the situation *wanted* to arrest both, but couldn't arrest Bundgaard due to his immunity from arrest under the provisions of the Arizona Constitution.  Which brings us to...

2.  "How did the legislature pass a law granting themselves immunity for their crimes?!?"  Actually, they didn't.  It's in Article Four, Section Six, of the Arizona Constitution, approved by the voters of Arizona.  And even there, it's only immunity from arrest, during the legislative session, except for treason, felony, or "breach of the peace."  It isn't immunity from prosecution.

Also, many people are now calling for a change in that section based on this one incident.  It shouldn't be. 

Such provisions have a valid purpose - they prevent the use of incarceration to harass political adversaries.  Given last week's arrest of Sal Reza, a loud critic of Senate President Russell Pearce, at the behest of Pearce, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine Pearce using that tool against recalcitrant legislators if the tool was available to him.


In short, while there are many emotional reasons to jump to conclusions one way or another, this is a situation where rationality should reign - wait until all of the facts are in, and *then* make an evaluation of the situation.

Of course, a rational person won't ignore the fact that Bundgaard has been in and out of court a multitude of times (30+) over the last two decades, ranging from civil cases (both as plaintiff and defendant), traffic cases* (all defendant, some guilty, some dismissed, but he must be paying a fortune for car insurance :) ), and family court (a lengthy divorce that included at least one order of protection).  In his favor:  nothing popped up on a search of criminal cases using "Bundgaard" as a search term.  Also, there doesn't seem to be any indication of violence in his past, with the caveat that I don't know the nature of the order of protection in his divorce.

Stay tuned on this one.  I'm betting that the story has legs...


* - His traffic cases show a pattern - he's got a lead foot all over the Valley and extending up to Yavapai County (Payson).  Speed was the most frequent reason given for one of his citations, though far from the only reason (unregistered/uninsured, failure to yield, stop sign violation, obscured plate).

And he's probably *really* happy that photo enforcement has been discontinued on Arizona's freeways.  They kept nailing him, which probably led to the license plate violation.  :)

Republicans running wild in D.C. - IOKIYAR rules the day

If you have a few minutes (50 or so) and appreciate subtle farce, take a look at this video of Congressman Anthony Weiner taking U.S. House Republicans to task for failing to follow their own rules when introducing new legislation.

When the GOP took over the House of Representatives earlier this year, they made a big show of enacting a rule that requires that a member who introduces legislation must cite the section of the Constitution the specifically grants to Congress the power to legislate in that area.

When the Republicans introduced H.R. 358, one they have named the "Protect Life Act," they were in such a rush to appease a certain segment of their base that they sort of neglected to make the proper citation.

And Congressman Weiner didn't give them a free pass on their hypocrisy.  :))



Later...

David Schweikert: "Master Of The Budget Numbers", or "Master Of The Lobbyist Payoff Game"?

David Schweikert (R-Club for Growth) was the subject of a recent puff piece on the conservative news site Human Events (of course, calling it a "news" site is like calling Bristol Palin a "dancer").

The writer lauded Schweikert (as Schweikert lauded himself) for being a "fiscal conservative" and touting his desire to rein in federal debt.

Schweikert feels that government spending beyonds its means is dreadful and must be stopped at all costs except, possibly, for raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.  He has even proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, H.J. Res. 23, that would mandate that the federal budget be balanced (no text available online yet as the measure was introduced just yesterday).

That feeling, however, doesn't apply to his *own* spending.  Nope, he's a lot more "flexible" where that is concerned.

According to his most recent FEC filing, his campaign has a little more that $16K cash on hand, while over $500K in debt and loan obligations, almost all to himself ($500K in loans).

Not to worry though, as Schweikert is a man with a plan.

In this case, he's got a lobbyist schmoozefest/begging session scheduled for Thursday in DC.

Information on the event, courtesy the Sunlight Foundation -

For: David Schweikert (R, AZ-5)
When: Feb. 10th, 2011 (6 p.m.)
Where: Acadiana - 901 New York Ave NW
Type of Event: Dinner
Contribution Information: $2,500 Host; $1,000 PAC; $500 Individual
Make Checks Payable To: Manzullo for Congress - PO Box 368 Falls Church, VA 22040
RSVP: Meredith Hurt; mhurt@thehammondgrp.com

This looks a whole lot like money laundering, and I'm not talking about the "Make Checks Payable To: Manzullo for Congress" instruction - I *think* that's a typo as both Schweikert and Don Manzullo (R-IL16) are both clients of Hammond and Associates, a Republican fundraising "consultant."  They (Hammond and Associates) have the same mailing address on their website as is listed on the invitation.

Basically, Schweikert has officially "loaned" his campaigns (2008 and 2010) half a million dollars and now as a sitting member of Congress, he is now reaching out for lobbyist handouts to pay for his profligate personal spending.

At this point, I'd normally make a crack about watching for Schweikert to place advocating for the interests of corporations before advocating for the interests of his official constituents, the people of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

However, it's long been known that if someone's last name can't be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC", Foreclosure Dave isn't there for them*.

* = One exception:  If that someone's job title can be abbreviated "CEO"...

P.S. - If you don't believe me, check out the list of contributors from his most recent FEC filing (linked above).

Perhaps if Schweikert wants people to believe that he is truly an advocate for fiscal responsibility, he should try, you know, *being* fiscally responsible.  Right now, however, it looks like the only things that differentiates him from JD Hayworth, the most recent Republican to hold the AZ5 seat, are visibly longer hair and no visible ties to Jack Abramoff.

Of course, Abramoff was released from confinement less than two months ago, so it may take a little more time for him to rebuild his "circle of influence."