Ballot time in Arizona

...and elsewhere, as well, but since I live in AZ and my ballot covers AZ, that means this post will focus on AZ (or at least my little part of it).

There are races here in Maricopa County and elsewhere in the state that are important and interesting, but this post only covers those that are on my ballot.


President -

This one is easy -

Hillary Clinton is easily one of the two or three most qualified people to ever run for president.

Donald Trump is a buffoon (which is a word I use to describe someone when I don't want to use the more colorful part of my vocabulary).

And I thought this even before Trump's recently unearthed admission of a seduction technique that can best be described as "rape".



US Senate seat representing AZ -

Ann Kirkpatrick is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me, but she genuinely works to represent her constituents.

In addition to supporting Donald Trump until it was no longer "cool" to do so, John McCain has never met a war he didn't monger.

Another easy choice.


US Congressional seat, representing CD9 -

Skipping this race.

There are two Republicans in this race.  Be it in this race or ones where an R is running and is uncontested, I will be skipping the race.  Even in Arizona there are Republicans who are decent human beings and are (or were) honorable public servants.

They can no longer get through primaries here.


LD24 seats in the Arizona Legislature -

They face no challengers, but Sen. Katie Hobbs, Rep. Lela Alston, and Rep. Ken Clark do a great job representing the people of LD24 and merit an expression of our support and thanks.


Arizona Corporation Commission -

This is Arizona's utility regulator, and when the CEO of the largest regulated utility endorses three of the candidates, vote for the other two, and only the other two.

Those are Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin.



Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, District 1 -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Assessor -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Attorney -

Diego Rodriguez.

County Attorney isn't just a "staff" job, where the person holding the position must have a particular skill set (the lawyer stuff), but must have integrity,

Bill Montgomery is the incumbent.  Ask him on which side of the bars we can find Sean Pearce.


Maricopa County Recorder -

Adrian Fontes.

A county recorder doesn't do much that directly impacts voters, except for RUN ELECTIONS.

The current recorder, Helen Purcell, has held the post for decades (literally!).

It has been decades since an election here went of without a hitch.

It seems that in every cycle, something new goes wrong, but there is one constant - she always blames someone else for the problems.

The height of her chutzpah in this regard may have been when she blamed incredibly long voting lines during the presidential primary on voters actually, you know, "voting".


Maricopa County School Superintendent -

Michelle Robertson.

There are two candidates on the ballot.

Both are teachers.

One hates public education and Common Core (in short, he's Diane Douglas with a Y chromosome...and she is unfit to be state superintendent of public instruction).

The other one is Michelle Robertson.

She's highly intelligent, highly educated, and student-focused, and will make a great leader and advocate for Maricopa County schools.


Maricopa County Sheriff -

Paul Penzone, in another easy choice.

The incumbent, Joe Arpaio, a nationally-renowned nativist and publicity junkie, is facing criminal charges over the way he operates the agency.

Penzone is a decorated career public servant.  Arpaio has been reduced to bald-faced lies.

It should be a walkover for Penzone, but it won't be - too many of Arpaio's supporters know he is a hater, but he hates the same way that they do.


Maricopa County Treasurer -

Joe Downs.

Like Robertson above, he's smart and knows his stuff.

Unlike his opponent, he doesn't believe in using public resources to campaign for public office.



Justice of the Peace, Arcadia Biltmore -

Skipping this race.


Constable, Arcadia Biltmore -

Carolyn Lane.  She's unopposed, but she works her a** off and deserves an expression of thanks and support.


CAWCD (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, aka the governing board of the Central Arizona Project) -

For this race, voters can select five candidates.  However, there are three outstanding ones - Alexandra Arboleda, Ben Graff, and Jim Holway.  Voting for only those three will increase the likelihood of them winning seats.


Maricopa County Community College District governing board, At-Large seat -

Linda Thor.



Scottsdale Unified School District ballot questions -

"Yes" on both.

Just because the legislature hates public education and refuses to adequately fund it, doesn't mean we have go along with them.


Mayor of Scottsdale -

Bob Littlefield.

Bob is a die-hard Republican, and when he's mayor, we will disagree on pretty much everything that Democrats and Republicans disagree on.

But he genuinely cares about the city.

On the other hand, Jim Lane (the incumbent) and his accomplices on the City Council seem to mostly care about money from developers, holders of liquor licenses, and others that come before the council.

I may not agree with Littlefield on much, and reserve the right to not vote for him in a future election, but for this one, he meets the basic criteria necessary for all elected officials should meet (but most in AZ fail to meet) -

He gives a damn about the district/city that he is running to represent.


Scottsdale City Council -

Guy Phillips.

He's a tea party type, and one I wouldn't vote for under most circumstances.

However, Lane and his handlers keep running negative campaigns against him, so he gets my vote - much as I don't like his ideology, anybody that Jim Lane dislikes can't be all bad.



Proposition 490 (Scottsdale-specific ballot question) -

It appears to be a harmless cleanup of language in the city charter, but, while I am not familiar with all of the people who submitted an argument, the ones that I am familiar with have never supported a "good government" measure that doesn't directly benefit them.

Oh, and Jim Lane also endorsed this one.

No.


Back of the ballot:

Judges - AZ Supreme Court, AZ Court of Appeals and Maricopa County Superior Court -

Voting to retain all listed, except for Jo Lynn Gentry.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review does a good job of examining their own, and I am going with that.

Next cycle, I may not - Governor Doug Ducey and the majority in the Arizona Legislature are doing their level best to co-opt/corrupt the judicial branch, and they may make enough inroads toward that goal that next time, the Commission may not merit trust.

For now, however, they do.


Arizona ballot questions -

Proposition 205

Passage of this one would legalize the possession of marijuana for recreational use.

This one is controversial, in that many of the people and corporations that profit from the status quo oppose it.  And have expended thousands (OK, millions) of dollars to defeat it.

Given that the vast majority of Arizonans understand that marijuana is not the "great evil" and opponents that profit from pharmaceuticals that are less effective than marijuana or the police state apparatus that has been constructed to wage the "War on Drugs", well, they've had to resort to misleading and false signs, TV spots, and more.

I am voting Yes.


Proposition 206 -

Passing this one would raise the state's minimum wage, in increments, to $12/hour by 2020.  It would also result in employees being able to accrue paid sick leave.

Yes.

Duh.

Kirkpatrick mounting a 2016 run for US Senate in 2016

The first "Wow!" moment of the 2016 election cycle, courtesy a tweet (via Facebook status) from Brahm Resnik of Phoenix channel 12 -

The full story is here.

McCain plays poker during "War in Syria?" hearing...

...It may not be "Nero fiddling while Rome burns", but considering that he is pushing America toward a war that maybe a dozen people want (well, a dozen people, plus defense industry lobbyists all over the Beltway), perhaps he should look like he is paying attention when others are discussing the idea...

At Tuesday's US Senate hearing on Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was caught playing poker on his iPhone by an observant reporter from the Washington Post.

Who took a picture ( :) ) -

After the picture started making the rounds on media websites, both MSM and social, McCain tweeted about the incident, attempting to minimize it -

People from all over the political spectrum have been poking a little fun at our Johnny Mac, and perhaps deservedly so.

But everyone, McCain detractors and supporters alike, should be aware that things could be worse.

At least he stayed awake this time.

Unlike, say, during the 2007 State of the Union speech.

pic courtesy the NY Times

Seriously, this is the man who wanted to be president. 

He can't even do the job of US Senator without taking a time out.

Even nuts think that John McCain is nuts

...but for the first, and probably last, time in this life, I may actually support McCain on this one...

The world of politics is famous for the non-apology apology. where someone "apologizes" for doing or saying something offensive or illegal or simply embarrassing without actually expressing any contrition or regret.

A prime example of this phenomenon happened last year when Rush Limbaugh famously called law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and worse for arguing that health insurers should be required to cover contraception measures.

After a national uproar ensued, many of his radio show's sponsors took their business elsewhere.  Limbaugh responded by apologizing for his "insulting word choices", but not for the hatefulness of his meaning.

To put is simply, Limbaugh was more sorry about the damage to the revenue stream to his radio show than his attack on someone advocated a policy position with which he disagreed.

At its best, the "non-apology apology" is merely weaselly; at its worst, it is a way of arrogantly re-insulting a previous victim under the guise of "making things right".


Now, the non-apology apology should not be confused with the *sarcastic* apology.

Like the non-apology apology, the sarcastic apology isn't really an apology.

Unlike the non-apology apology, the sarcastic apology doesn't really try to fool anyone into thinking that it is a genuine apology (unless it is directed toward people who don't speak sarcasm).

The best recent example of this comes from Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert.

Earlier this year, he joined some other conspiracy theorists/fetishists from DC (including AZ's Trent Franks) in a letters to federal intelligence and security agencies questioning the loyalty of a senior aide to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because the aide has Middle Eastern ancestry.

US Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized Gohmert and the others, and Gohmert responded to McCain's criticism by referring to McCain as "numbnuts".

This week, Gohmert apologized.  Sort of.

From the Houston Chronicle -

On Wednesday, the Republican from Tyler was appearing on the  conservative radio show “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” when McCain, along with former Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, was mentioned. Gohmert admitted he apologized for calling McCain a “numbnuts” following criticism the Arizona lawmaker made of a letter Gohmert and several others wrote. Gohmert said he should have left out the word “numb.”

 

“I did express my regret in saying that he was a numbnuts because I didn’t — I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘numb’, ” Gohmert said. “That was probably unfair.”

Calling someone "numbnuts", well that isn't considered witty by anyone who has graduated from the 6th grade, but that faux apology is tremendously witty...by 9th grade standards.

Of course, my sense of humor seems to have stopped maturing sometime around 10th grade, hence my opinion that Gohmert's "apology" is reasonably funny.

Seriously, Gohmert calling someone else "nuts" (numb or otherwise) is like McCain calling someone else "old" - it might be true, but the source of the allegation isn't exactly in a position to point fingers.

Hat tip to the Texas blog Juanita Jean's| The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc. for spotting this, and anyone who is interested in learning about Texas' Gohmert, who wraps an entire AZ lege's worth of crazy into one body, should be a regular reader.  She does a great job of keeping track of his brand of "howl at the moon" nuttiness.

Republicans in US Senate kill veterans' jobs bill; prepare to go on vacation until after the November election

From the National Journal via its sister publication Government Executive, written by Erin Mershon -

Senate Republicans effectively killed a measure to find jobs for unemployed veterans on a procedural vote Wednesday, after several attempts by Democrats to keep the bill on the table failed.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., raised a point of order against the bill on Wednesday, citing alleged violations of Senate budget rules. Since three-fifths of the chamber did not vote to waive the rules, the legislation cannot move forward.

The point of order was the latest in a string of obstacles designed to derail the bill, which would have created the Veterans Jobs Corps by setting aside $1 billion in federal grants to give veterans priority for jobs that might require military skills, such as in law enforcement or fire safety. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., briefly filibustered the legislation last week in an unrelated attempt to withdraw aid to Pakistan.

The Senate vote was 58 - 40, with 60 votes needed to allow the measure to move forward.

Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the measure, every vote against the measure was cast by a Republican.  Five Republicans did cross over to vote in support of veterans -

- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a tough battle with Elizabeth Warren for the Senate seat there.

- Susan Collins of Maine, who isn't up for reelection this year, but is known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus in the Senate.

- Olympia Snowe of Maine, who would be up for reelection this year, except she is retiring.  Also known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus.

- Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a fierce race against Shelley Berkley in his quest for a full term in the Senate.  So fierce, in fact, that Heller is now trying to distance himself from Mitt Romney, who is beginning to act as a drag on the rest of the R ticket.

- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.  Since the tea party types in her party turned on her and she was able to beat them back, as a write-in candidate of all things, she will occasionally vote for the best interests of her constituents and for America, and this was one of those occasions.

However, two of the Republicans who voted against veterans and for petty partisanship -

Arizona's own Jon Kyl and John McCain.

Kyl's vote is not a surprise; he's part of the leadership of the R caucus in the US Senate and his primary guiding principle seems to be "if it doesn't help me or mine (industry lobbyists and other Republicans), then it doesn't pass."  He (and they) view anything to help veterans as something that would help President Obama, especially since Obama strongly supported the veterans' job corps.  And they oppose *everything* that could even remotely be seen as helping the president.

McCain's vote is more than a bit of a surprise.  He's a veteran himself (in case you missed the eight zillion or so campaign ads, mailers, and talking points mentioning that fact when he ran for president in 2008) and recently has been showing signs that the "maverick" McCain was returning, the McCain who once looked like he was made of presidential timbre.

In short, the McCain with actual principles is long gone and "ain't comin' back".

And now the Senate has one more vote this week, making all of *three* this week, before heading home until after the November elections.

It seems that membership in the Republican-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, has become the next best thing to "no show jobs", so it's kind of appropos that the Congress is also the "no jobs show".

And before someone complains that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate, the Senate rules allow for the minority party to obstruct the process at every turn, and the Republicans have enthusiastically, even ruthlessly, taken advantage of those rules.  They may not be in the majority in the Senate, but they are in control in the Senate.

BTW - did anyone else notice that the five Rs who supported the measure are women or are being challenged by women this year?  Not sure what it means, or if it even means anything at all, but it sure is interesting...

Instead of apologizing for his bigoted comments regarding the Wallow Fire, John McCain is doubling down...

In June, to widespread criticism, Arizona Senator John McCain blamed unnamed illegal immigrants for the large wildfires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona this summer, including the Wallow Fire, the largest in AZ history.

There was no evidence at the time that undocumented immigrants set the fires, but that lack of evidence didn't stop McCain.

The furor over his remarks died down somewhat as the summer wore on, but people didn't forget McCain's broadly bigoted statements.

That became obvious yesterday, when two cousins from Arizona, both with the last name "Malboeuf", were arrested for starting the Wallow Fire with a carelessly handled campfire.

The arrests, definitive evidence that McCain was simply wrong in June, brought forth renewed calls for McCain to apologize.

McCain's response?

A robust denial that the arrests in the Wallow Fire mean that his comments were wrong, only that immigrants didn't start that single fire.

Guess McCain and his cohorts think that people with a name like "Malboeuf" are still from Mexico, only the most northern part.

The part that the rest of us call "Canada."


Note:  I'm just guessing at the ancestral ethnic background of the suspects.  "Malboeuf" sounds French or French-Canadian.

Later...

John McCain hired by The Daily Show*

*OK, not really, but they did introduce a puppet that is so incredibly life-like it could be a clone...

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion already has this, but it's too funny not to post it here, too.

Photo courtesy TPM.

From the accompanying article, which includes video -

After the 112th Congress convened yesterday, Jon Stewart celebrated his pick for the Senate's grumpiest member: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)


"McCain's old-man crankiness has gone off the charts," Stewart said last night. "On the scale, he's clearly gone from a man of wisdom all the way to full Gran Torino."

By the way, no matter what some may think, that's not a rude gesture in the pic.  Jon Stewart asked McCain/the puppet how many homes he has.  It's not the right answer, but at least it's better than his previous answer of "I don't know".

DADT repeal and the DREAM Act: .500 batting average is great in baseball...

...but it sucks in real life...

John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona's Senators, joined the Three Amigos (Congresscritters Flake, Franks, and Shadegg) on the "Lump of coal in their Christmas stockings" list today...not that they weren't already charter members of that not-so-distinguished group. :)

First, the good news: the Senate passed cloture on repeal of the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gay and lesbian members of the U.S. armed forces.  The vote there was 63 in favor, 33 opposed.  The move basically sets an end to Senate debate on the measure and allows it to be brought up for a final vote (likely later today).  Passing cloture makes it seem likely that the measure will gain full approval because that will only require a simple majority (51 votes) not the 3/5 support (60 votes) that cloture requires.

Now, the bad news:  by a vote of 55- 41 (60 votes needed to pass), the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act, effectively killing the measure.  If passed, it would have created a path to "legal" immigrant status and possible citizenship for children brought to the U.S. by undocumented immigrants.  That path wouldn't have been an easy one, requiring many things, including attending college here or serving in the U.S. armed forces.  The nativist Rs, aided and abetted by five Democrats (Nelson of NE, Pryor of AR, Tester and Baucus of MT, and Hagan of NC) held sway today, however, turning their backs on the many hard-working and high-achieving residents of the U.S. who were brought to the United States through no choice of their own.

Three Rs did show some character, voting for decency over demagoguery.   Deepest thanks go out to Bennett of UT, Murkowski of AK, and Lugar of IN for their support.

Kyl and McCain showed a remarkable consistency - they were against both measures, voting to undercut members of the military who are honorably serving their country *and* to snub many of their own constituents who have done nothing but help make Arizona's (and America's) society more robust.

In baseball, consistency is good.  A batter who hits .290 every season has the same lifetime average as one who hits .240 and .340 in alternate years, yet the consistent player it considered the better player, one desired by almost every team.

In real life however, as written by Emerson in his essay Self Reliance, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Emerson may have been writing nearly a century before McCain or Kyl was born, but it's almost as if he was watching them in action when he wrote his essay.

The AZ Republic is applying some fresh Chapstick and puckering up

The editorial board of the Arizona Republic is kissing up to the Republicans in AZ's delegation to Congress (I won't engage in unseemly speculation about which part of the Rs they are trying to kiss :) ).

The latest indication of this activity is the poorly written love letter masquerading as an "analysis" piece that the Rep published on Sunday.

The piece -

Vote gives Arizona more clout in Congress

The midterm elections will likely boost Arizona's clout in Congress, giving the state's new delegation greater power in crafting legislation and deciding how billions of federal taxpayer dollars will be spent.

Among the results, Arizona lawmakers say, could be increased highway funds for the state, more money for border security and even the passage of legislation to allow the construction of a huge, controversial new copper mine near Superior.

The growing influence of the state begins in the U.S. House. A new Republican majority among Arizona's House delegation ensures that Arizona's voice will be heard by the GOP House leaders who take control in January.

More "influence" in the House?

More federal projects for Arizona?

Riiiiiggghhhht...

Let's see:

Jeff Flake (CD6) has made a career out of taking an apparently principled stand against earmarks or any projects for his district (to be fair to Flake, it isn't just his district - like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, he hates *everything.*  Unlike the fictional character Mikey however, he doesn't change in the face of reality), but he wins reelection every year in his R-heavy district because he is well-coiffed, smiles a lot, and he isn't an embarrassment (say, in the mold of J.D. Hayworth).

Trent Franks (CD2) actively works against highway money for his district.  He will occasionally support a local project, but those usually involve the construction of jails or the purchase of some new technology for law enforcement.  And even in that, he seems almost ashamed for doing something that might possibly help his constituents (even if it's less "helping his constituents" and more "helping to imprison his constituents").  In fact, the only thing he exhibits any enthusiasm around is his quest to destroy a woman's right to choose.

Newly-electeds Paul Gosar (CD1) and David Schweikert (CD5) were elected on tea party/pro-corporate platforms and seem unlikely to support any efforts to help Arizonans...unless those Arizonans have last names that can be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC".  And have contributed to their campaigns.

The newly-elected Ben Quayle (CD3) may be the House member most likely to support projects for his district.  He's got two years to establish his "representative" bona fides before running for reelection after the redistricting process changes his district.  Still, given his daddy's (and his daddy's friends') heavy involvement in his campaign, he seems likely to favor projects that will help the companies of his donors, not his constituents.

As for AZ's contingent in the U.S. Senate, both Jon Kyl and John McCain have been in D.C. for decades, and for decades, they haven't worked for Arizona.

Kyl openly works for Big Business, protecting their interests to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of the average Arizonan.

McCain openly works for John McCain.  Period.


The article is right about one thing, though. 

The change in the partisan balance in Congress, and in Arizona's delegation to Congress, will almost certainly mean that the Resolution Copper land swap/swipe will go through.  Of course, while that is sold as a benefit to Arizonans (in the form of mining jobs and tax revenue, while ignoring the multi-generational costs of a destroyed environment and watershed, and the savaging of ancestral Native lands held in "trust" by the federal government), the big beneficiary will be a large, multi-national corporation, Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto (or its Resolution Copper subsidiary) has donated directly to the campaign committees, or to mining industry PACs that donated to the campaign committees, of almost every R member of AZ's delegation.  I couldn't find any direct or indirect contributions to Gosar in the time allotted for this post.

The results of Tuesday's elections will almost certainly result in more influence in Congress for the Rs in Arizona's Congressional delegation.  It almost certainly won't result in more influence in Congress for Arizona.


Certain people (and newspapers) in Arizona like to complain that AZ doesn't get its "fair share" of federal projects.

They may be correct.


So why do they continue to support candidates and electeds who are dedicated to opposing projects for Arizona?

Arizona Republic editorial board to its readers: Arizona may be in lousy shape, but you should vote for the status quo

Liberals like to claim that the Arizona Republic is a "conservative" paper, but it's not. (Though to be fair, many of them remember the not-so-distant days when the Rep was officially named the "Arizona Republican" or less officially served as the press release outlet for the Arizona Republican Party.)

Conservatives like to claim that the Rep is a "liberal" paper, but it isn't.  (It just isn't a mouthpiece for the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" wing of the AZGOP.)

Instead, the Arizona Republic is a "corporate" paper, dedicated to defending corporate profit margins.  Since most corporations operate in such a way as to derive the maximum profit from the political status quo, the Republic has become a staunch defender of that status quo.

Their latest list of election endorsements clearly illustrate this tendency.

- They passed over Terry Goddard in giving their endorsement in the race for governor to Jan Brewer.  They called Goddard an "articulate, dedicated servant of the people of this state" yet gave the nod to Brewer, citing her ability to "handle the legislature" (apparently, the Rep's editorial board slept through all of 2009) and her disbanding of the state's Department of Commerce in favor of a meaningless (and authority-less) "Commerce Authority."  What they also liked was her support for "enhancing prospects for job creation" - better known as blanket tax cuts directed to corporations.

- They ignored Rodney Glassman (literally!  He wasn't even mentioned in the article!) in giving their endorsement for U.S. Senate to John McCain.  In the opinion piece, they cited "McCain's role in all those great national and world debates," such as the debates over the war in Iraq and campaign finance reform.  What they didn't cite were McCain's accomplishments for Arizona.  They couldn't cite those accomplishments, because there aren't any.  This particular endorsement also isn't a surprise, even aside from its "status quo" characteristics - the Rep's editorial board has been in the McCain family pocket for decades (is Dan Nowicki the Republic's reporter who is embedded with McCain's staff, or is he the McCain staffer embedded with the Republic?  Either way, the effect, and the final product, is the same...)

- The Rep's endorsement of Ann Kirkpatrick in the CD1 race also serves to illustrate the Rep's "status quo" bias - she's an incumbent, and while a Democrat, she's a conservative one who thoroughly supports Big Business.  Note: While I too support and recommend voting for her, it's because she is the better candidate, not a great candidate.

- The logic the Rep's editorial board used when passing over Penny Kotterman when endorsing John Huppenthal for State Superintendent of Public Instruction astounds me, even when allowing for their "status quo" bias.  They cite his 18 years of legislative experience focusing on education issues and then follow it up with this quote -

We believe the sort of reform advocated by John Huppenthal is best for improving Arizona's often dismal comparative standing on the crucial questions of how best to improve schools.

Ummm...do they understand that Huppenthal and the "reforms" pimped by him are some of the major reasons for Arizona's "dismal comparative standing" on most education-related metrics?  And that his experience in the lege has included years of trying to slowly destroy public education in Arizona?

Their endorsement is as sensible as a doctor sitting down with a patient who has been diagnosed with lung cancer after decades of smoking and suggesting that the patient could cure the cancer by smoking more cigarettes.

- In a bit of a surprise, the Rep's editorial board endorsed Felecia Rotellini over Tom Horne for Attorney General.  They complimented her as "smart and unflappable," which is very true, but Tom Horne is a current office holder and an establishment Republican.  This would seem to disprove my "status quo bias" position, until one remembers that, like Rotellini, Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General, is smart, unflappable, and a Democrat. 

- However, the Rep did spring one big surprise on voters, and not in a good way.  They twisted themselves like a pretzel to find a way to ignore Jon Hulburd and give their CD3 endorsement to Ben Quayle.

First, they opened up their piece with -

Ben Quayle, a Republican, may be the best-known congressional candidate in the country who isn't a member of the "tea party." That shouldn't matter to voters in District 3, which stretches from north-central Phoenix to New River. They don't need a celebrity. They need the best representative they can elect.

In the next paragraph, they follow that up with -

If this were a job interview, Democrat Jon Hulburd would have the large advantage. He rose to become a partner at Fennemore Craig, one of Phoenix's top law firms. He left to start an import business. He has career and community accomplishments that Quayle can't match.

So naturally, after pointing out Quayle's celebrity status and saying that CD3 doesn't need a celebrity in Congress, and Hulburd's vastly superior resume and qualifications, they gave their endorsement to Quayle -

But elections aren't just about resumes. They're about ideas. And on that score, Quayle is the better candidate to succeed John Shadegg. Quayle is well-versed in the issues. He speaks with passion and conviction.

So, the Rep soft-pedals Quayle's lack of qualifications for any elected office, much less a seat in Congress, and completely ignores his pre-candidacy career as a writer for the website Dirty Scottsdale, under the porn-riffic nom de plume "Brock Landers."

Could the Quayle family's previous ownership of the Republic have influenced the endorsement?  Nahhhh, couldn't be...

The headline for the Rep's endorsement was "Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction."

Given that Quayle's previous "candor" indicated a deep disrespect for women and could lead to convictions of the criminal variety if he becomes part of the free-for-all social environment in D.C.'s political subculture, instead of being a surprise, perhaps the Rep's endorsement of his [possible] ascension to Congress would be in perfect keeping with their desire to maintain the status quo.

Less than a week ago, the Republic actually brought themselves some credit with their list of endorsements for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District - the candidates they endorsed were intelligent, educated, experienced, and highly-qualified for the job.

Apparently, however, those qualities are desirable only in candidates for lower-profile (though extremely important) offices. 

I may agree with some of the Rep's coming endorsements, but where I will support the candidates who are better for Arizona, they'll be supporting the candidates who they see as most protective of their preferred status quo.

Glassman-McCain debate -

OK, the debate included the Libertarian candidate (David Nolan) and the Green candidate (Jerry Joslyn), but the featured players were Democrat Rodney Glassman and Republican John McCain.

I'll do a full recap when the video archive is posted (either on Glassman's campaign website or on KTVK's), but I can give a summary now -

Glassman did well, but I don't think he landed a knockout blow.

Republicans will still vote for McCain and Democrats will still vote for Glassman.  Glassman may have moved a few independent voters, but he's going to need more than a "few" to pull off the upset of the year in politics.

Best line of the night:

"If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependend on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

Most awkward moment of the night:

When asked to describe his legislative legacy when compared to great Arizona senators of yore like Carl Hayden (Central Arizona Project) and Ernest McFarland (original GI Bill).

McCain's response -

His "reputation."


That answer may be one of the most completely honest things that McCain said during the entire debate.

He has no actual accomplishments anymore.  He had a few things that he could point to, but in his quest to move far enough right to win the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and to turn back the challenge of JD Hayworth this year, he has turned his back on everything good he has ever done in D.C. (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, DREAM Act sponsorship, etc.)

He can't point to work on bringing projects to Arizona - that would be out of character for his "anti-earmark" persona.  Hell, Rick Renzi (Rick freakin' Renzi!) did a better job of that (projects on the Navajo reservation were the main reason he could win re-election in a D-leaning district.)

He can't point to his success fighting earmarks and out-of-control federal spending - earmarks are still around (full disclosure: I don't think that all earmarks are bad, but they should be for public works projects and should be completely transparent) and the U.S. has waged two fantastically expensive off-the-books wars with his enthusiastic support.  Hell, Jeff Flake has been more effective on earmarks than the far more senior McCain, and Flake has had almost no success on the issue.

He can't even point to work on veterans' issues - other than occasionally employing a few for campaign ads, he has done nothing for veterans, despite being one himself (a fact that he always points out, while blithely ignoring his lack of effort on behalf of his fellow vets).  Hell, Harry Mitchell has done more for America's (and Arizona's) veterans in four years than McCain has done in nearly three decades in D.C.

Still, Glassman didn't do as well as he could have, or will need to, in order to defeat McCain.

Still2, McCain didn't put away Glassman.  After the primary debate, Hayworth was toast.  However, Glassman held his own Sunday night.  The next five or so weeks should be very interesting.


My friend Eric summed it up best when he wrote on Facebook that Glassman needs to run as McCain2K against McCain2K10.


John McCain circa 2000 was somebody people could respect and even vote for while disagreeing with him on specific issues.

John McCain circa 2010 looks more like a tired reactionary hack than the energetic maverick that he was just 10 years ago.


OK.  That really was more a recap than the short comment that I had started writing.  It took so long that KTVK has already posted its story on the debate, complete with links to the video.

It took so long that Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has already posted twice on the debate, here and here.

Later...

Candidate Debates for the week ending October 3, 2010

Most of the following info is from the Clean Elections website...

No CE-sponsored debates for statewide candidates this week.


Legislative debates -

LD4
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Windmill Suites at Sun City West
12545 W Bell Road
Surprise, AZ 85374

LD29
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College District Office
Community Room
4905 E Broadway
Tucson, AZ



LD24

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn & Suites
600 E 16th Street
Yuma, AZ 85365

LD30
September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
East Campus Community Room
8181 E Irvington
Tucson, AZ



LD12

Thursday, September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn and Suite
2000 N Litchfield Road
Goodyear, AZ 85395


Scottsdale City Council candidate debate:

Arizona Republic City Council Debates
Monday, September 27, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.

And the big one of the week, even though it will take place on Sunday, September 26 (before the "week" in this post begins):

U.S. Senate debate. featuring Rodney Glassman, Democratic nominee, and John McCain, Republican incumbent

6 p.m.
Broadcast on KTVK (Phoenix channel 3) and KTTU (Tucson channel 18), carried on cable in Yuma, and livestreamed on AZFamily.com

Should be fun, though probably not quite as popcorn-worthy as the debate between McCain and Hayworth in the R primary.

Later...

Billionaire fraudsters/GOP donors indicted: Will AZGOP, McCain, Kyl, and Schweikert return donations?

From ABC News -

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged billionaire Samuel Wyly and his brother Charles with fraud for reaping more than $550 million of illicit gains by trading stock in four companies while they were serving as directors.


Samuel Wyly, 75, and Charles Wyly, 76, were accused of concocting a sham web of trusts and subsidiaries in the Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands to conceal over a 13-year period more than $750 million of stock sales in Michaels Stores Inc, Sterling Commerce Inc, Sterling Software Inc and Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings Ltd.

The Wyly family (the brothers, their wives, and their children) have been huge GOP supporters over the years, giving millions to Republican candidates, committees, and front groups/PACs (like Swift Boat and Club for Growth).

Some of their largesse has reached into Arizona.

According to FEC records, they've given at least $5K to Jon Kyl's campaigns over the years, $3K to John McCain's Senate campaign since 1997 (and many thousands more to his PAC and presidential campaigns) and even $2300 in 2008 to David Schweikert's campaign in CD5 (that one was contributed by son Andrew, who hasn't been indicted as yet).

Also according to FEC records, Sam Wyly gave over $1100 directly to the Arizona Republican Party in 2004.

They really juicy stuff, however, was from a quick glance at the website of the Arizona Secretary of State - the Wylys gave over $700K to an Arizona-registered committee called "1648 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE."

I'm assuming because of the name that's actually a federal soft-money committee that had to register in AZ because it expended money here, but appointed Secretary of State Ken Bennett has reduced the functionality of the SOS' website, so I wasn't able to look up the relevent reports (from 2000 and 2002).

That's still a LOT of money.

The AZGOP has been rather enthusiastic (occasionally justly so) in calling on AZ Democrats to return contributions from sources with tarnished reputations.

Now will they just as enthusiastically meet the standards that they hold Democrats to, or will they be hypocrites?

Note: that last is a rhetorical question.  I don't expect them to even blink over the Wyly money, much less express any regrets over accepting it.

Later...

BTW - this info was gathered in approximately 30 minutes of search time; somebody with more time could probably find evidence that the Wylys have contributed more money and exerted more influence over AZGOP politics than that which I've outlined here.

Brewer's election year economic posturing: More of the same garbage that got us in the mess that we are in...

...And it's the same garbage that has gutted the underpinnings of America's once-robust economy...

There was an interesting coincidence today - the Arizona Republic ran a piece touting the economic record and proposals of Jan Brewer while she's been governor of AZ while Business Insider ran a piece (with a related blog post from Yahoo! Finance) highlighting 22 statistics that show that America's middle class, once the envy of the world, has all but disappeared.

While minds far more perceptive than mine and voices far more eloquent than mine can parse and discuss the details, essentially the wealth of the middle class has been siphoned off to pad the wallets and bank accounts and property listings of America's wealthiest (what, you thought that the wealthy were taking from the poor?  The poor don't have much worth taking.  That's why they are called "poor"...)

The concentration of America's wealth into an ever-smaller segment of our society has been enacted/enabled by the corpratization/globalization policies fronted by Republicans (and yes, CorpraDems, too!) over the last 30 or so years.

And nothing in Jan Brewer's "Five Point Plan" is going to help AZ's middle class.

1.  Structural Budget Reform.  Possibly the least bad of her "points", but also the least meaningful.  Not enacted yet, or even the subject of substantive proposals (aka - bills before the legislature)

2.  Improve Proposition 105 - The Voter Protection Act.  AKA - "Get rid of the Voter Protection Act."  The measure was enacted to prevent legislative tinkering with things approved by a direct vote cast by the state's electorate.  This has led to the lege's (and Brewer's!) inability to get rid of things like First Things First (an early childhood health and education initiative) and Growing Smarter (a program that gives Arizonans a voice in and some control over over growth in their communities and land conservation.

Things like societal infrastructure/safety net and citizen control of government and the world around them are antithetical to those Republicans (and CorpraDems) who are more concerned with protecting profit margins than with public service.

Those are things that Brewer and the Republicans running the lege have condemned since they were enacted by the voters, and the current budget crisis has provided the best hope that the Reps have had for a repeal - they hope that voters are frightened enough to roll over for them.

There are lege-initiated questions (here and here) on the ballot in November to push forward the anti-societal agenda.

3.  Additional spending cuts.  Well, that one *has* been enacted, mostly to the sort of spending that benefits society as a whole - education, AHCCCS, and other social safety net programs.  One area set for an increase in spending is on the private prisons (and the deep-pocketed corporations that own them) that stand to benefit from Brewer's signature on SB1070, the anti-immigrant law scheduled to go into effect in less than a week.

There will be more cuts in the next budget cycle.  In addition, there will be more cuts this year if one or both of the above measures aren't approved by the voters.

Not that destroying First Things First and Growing Smarter won't qualify as "cuts"...

4. Reform and modernization of Arizona's state tax structure.  "Reform" and "modernization" are code words for "continue to shift Arizona's tax burden on to those who can least afford it (but also onto those who can least afford the bribes campaign contributions to the politicians who are "supposed" to represent their interests.)

5. Temporary Tax Increase – Increase state revenues by $1 billion per year.  Brewer got this one.  Of course, her temporary tax increase was to the incredibly regressive state sales tax, not to the already low property tax.  Of course, increases to the property tax, even property taxes themselves, are considered corporate/upper class-UNfriendly, hence the lack of discussion of a more equitable tax structure in AZ.

In short, Brewer's economic "plan" is nothing more than "more of what is destroying America's future."

Giving her four years to implement her "plan" for Arizona is something that the average Arizonan cannot afford.

...Earlier this month, John McCain accused President Obama of "generational theft"; McCain should look across the table at his fellow Republicans like Brewer (as well as in a mirror) before throwing around such accusations.

The Republican Senate Debate

Earlier this evening, the three candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate appeared at a forum televised on Phoenix channel 3 (KTVK). (Video of tonight's forum, as well as last week's Democratic forum, can be found here)

I wasn't going to write about it as I figure the R bloggers in AZ will do that (figure Sonoran Alliance will annoint Hayworth the hands-down winner, Political Mafioso will do the same for McCain, and somebody will declare Deakin to be the "future of the Republican Party" or some such tripe), but I'm sitting through one of the ugliest innings that I have ever seen as the DBacks mail it in against the Padres,

As such, I have the time for a few comments.

First, the summary:

Candidate 1: You support amnesty/earmarks/big government!  I'm the *real* conservative! 

Candidate 2: I'm rubber and you're glue!  Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

Candidate 3: At least you both agree with me on that.


Seriously, this was less a candidate forum and more a remake of an 80s slasher flick - they were cutting at each other from the word go.  Hayworth and McCain spent no time telling what they would do to serve Arizona and its residents.  Neither did Deakin, but he was almost an afterthought as McCain and Hayworth spent the hour launching haymakers at each other.

McCain and Hayworth made it obvious from the beginning that participating in the forum wasn't one of the ir priorities. 

Frequently, the answers they gave had very little or nothing to do with the questions asked and a lot to do with criticizing the other.

Hayworth dropped names, citing endorsements from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and other nativist individuals and organizations.

McCain didn't mention people so much as run down the list of big corporations that he will aid if he is re-elected.  (trolling for campaign cash?)

Deakin tended vacillate between "stop Obama" and "restore constitutional government!"  He may have dropped some names, but by the time the third question was asked I was tuning out the responses.  I kept an eye on the screen waiting/hoping that one of the candidates would jump across the lectern trying to throttle one of the others.

It didn't happen, but I kept hoping for a popcorn moment. :))

Anyway, the big winner(s) of Friday's debate had to be the Democratic candidates. 

They were far from perfect during their debate, but they focused on the issues facing the state and the country while avoiding personal attacks.

Whichever one is the eventual nominee can point to their performance and compare it to the Republican nominee's. 

And no matter who the eventual nominees are, the D will come off as the candidate who is more professional, mature, and concerned for Arizona.

Breaking news: Federal Government Sues AZ Over SB1070

....OK, OK, that is hardly breaking news - everybody expected a lawsuit was coming as soon as Jan Brewer signed Russell Pearce's anti-immigrant measure into law in late April.

How about this for a title?

Breaking News - Republicans Freak Out Over Federal Lawsuit To Block SB1070

...OK, OK, that's hardly surprising either.  They freak out whenever somebody calls them out on their garbage.

Anyway, on to the main part of the post.

From the Arizona Republic -

The Obama administration filed suit today against Arizona's landmark immigration law, alleging it was unconstitutional and a U.S. District Court judge should keep it from going into effect July 29.

The suit, filed in Phoenix, claims Arizona's new law "will conflict and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives," and divert resources from the "dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

{snip}


Gov. Jan Brewer, who is named as a defendant along with the state, called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision.

"It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels," Brewer said in a written statement. "Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.

Other reactions:

Congressman Harry Mitchell, from a press release -

"I am extremely disappointed that the Obama Administration has decided to file a lawsuit against Arizona to try to overturn our state's new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. This is the wrong direction to go. I urged President Obama and his administration against doing so because I strongly believe their time, efforts and resources should be focused on securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system. Arizona needs Washington to take action, but a lawsuit is definitely not the kind of action we need.

Attorney General Terry Goddard, from a campaign press release -

"What we need are solutions, not lawsuits. Until we get real solutions, more states will turn to band-aid remedies to address this very important issue," said Attorney General Terry Goddard. "It is disappointing to see the federal government choosing to intervene in a state statute instead of working with Arizona to create sustainable solutions to the illegal immigration issue that our state and country so desperately need."

State Senator Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) calls the lawsuit an "insult" to Arizonans.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, from a McCain press release -

“The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.”

My take:

The law is bad, the lawsuit is necessary, and any sort of immigration policy that doesn't address the underlying cause of immigration from Mexico to the U.S, the economics, whether it's Russell Pearce's version of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" or some kind of "comprehensive reform" is doomed to fail.

And all of the blathering about "insults" and "attacks" and "secure the border first" won't change that.

BTW - The best quote about this wasn't actually said about this mess. 

In 2007, the late, great Molly Ivin wrote "Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don't like."

Look for Brewer, Pearce, and the other nativists suffer from fits of apoplexy if/when a federal judge blocks their police-state law.


The text of the legal filing can be found here, courtesy AZCentral.com

McCain moving farther right as the campaign wears on

To follow up on his joining JD Hayworth on the nativist train, now McCain is partying with noted anti-Semites.

Pics courtesy Blue Virginia -

The highlight here is the name of one of the "hosts," Fred Malek.

Many years ago, Malek was an operative in the Nixon-era White House. One of his more eye-opening raisons d'etre while there was to count (and purge?) Jewish employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The appearance with Malek isn't much of a surprise - Malek was a big part of McCain's unsuccessful bid for the Presidency. Still, this move, drinking for dollars with noted anti-Semites like Malek (as well as Governor Bob "slavery wasn't part of the Confederacy" McDonnell), only serves to remind voters that McCain has far more in common with J.D. "worship Nazi Henry Ford" Hayworth than he has to separate himself from Hayworth.

Washington Post coverage of the fundraiser (taking place in just a few hours) here.

Later...

Cliche time: Politics makes strange bedfellows

Earlier today, John McCain brought his Senate reelection campaign, and his newest best buddy Mitt Romney, to Mesa.

Romney was effusive in his praise for McCain today, which may have surprise long-time (and not-so-long-time) observers who remember the 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of those observers are at the DNC, and they put this together -

JD Hayworth, channelling his inner John Belushi

I had resolved not to pay much attention to the brouhaha among the Republicans over the Senate seat. Whether their eventual nominee is John McCain or JD Hayworth, Rodney Glassman is a far better choice to represent Arizona in the United States Senate.

However, this one is too good to pass up.

:)

Last week, Hayworth spoke to a group of Republicans, and started expounding on history. Specifically, he claimed that the U.S. never declared war against Nazi Germany.





Now, perhaps I am being too hard on good ol' JD. He's hardly the first famous person to get WW2 history wrong.



When John Belushi spoke about Germany "bombing Pearl Harbor" and when JD spoke about the US never declaring war on Nazi Germany, neither one was citing facts.

The difference being that when Belushi spoke, was just acting. Hayworth actually believes what he spouted.

Of course, they do have one thing in common - whether we are talking about Belushi's classic bit in Animal House or Hayworth's pontifications, hearty laughter is the result.

The McCain campaign may be learning the same lesson that Harry Mitchell learned in 2006 when he defeated Hayworth - the best way to beat JD is to let him be himself.

BTW - to anyone who may be thinking that Hayworth was correct - after an address by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, which was followed by Germany and Italy declaring war on the U.S., which was then followed by the U.S. declaring war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.

Dark Clouds, Silver Linings, and Lessons

The results of Tuesday's elections across the country offer a silver lining of hope in what has long been considered to be a dark year for Democrats. And nowhere is that silver lining brighter than in Arizona.

To whit:

- Dark cloud: Libertarian (dressed in Republican clothing) Rand Paul wins the R nomination for Senate in Kentucky.

- Silver lining: He's already imploding, coming out against the Civil Rights Act...before backing off (sort of). Guess he was against the Act before he was for it.

- Silver lining2 - Paul received 206,960 votes in the R primary; Daniel Mongiardo, the 2nd place Democrat in the D primary, received 225,159. There are almost 600K more Ds than Rs in Kentucky. They are Ds of a conservative bent (hence the two Rs currently representing KY in the U.S. Senate) but they won't put up with the public embarrassment that Paul is threatening to become.

- Lesson: The most "whatever" candidate in a party's primary may not be that party's *best* candidate. Not making a prediction here (yet), but despite the Tea Party's glee over Paul's nomination, winning the nomination isn't the same as winning the office. This race is far from over. The Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in KY, Jack Conway, is in a solid position entering the general election campaign.


- (Not so) Dark cloud: Democrat Mark Critz won the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District. The win keeps the Ds' perfect record in head-to-head special elections held since the 2008 election intact and allows them to retain the seat held by the late Jack Murtha for the better part of four decades.

- Silver lining: Critz may have shown the way to beat the Rs' standard campaign platform of running against D.C., Nancy Pelosi, and those durn "liberal" Democrats, and it's the most basic lesson in politics - all politics is local. The R in the race, Tim Burns, ran as a generic national Republican/Club for Growth candidate, campaigning against Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Critz stumped the western PA district and talked about jobs.

Critz won.

- Lesson: No matter if the pundits think that the trends in a given election cycle dramatically favor one party over another (as they think that 2010 favors Rs over Ds), any single race is usually won by the candidate who runs the better, more district-focused, campaign.


- Dark cloud: Republicans all over Arizona are grasping for the chance to go Congress.

- Silver lining: Their primaries have become cattle call, "I'm more conservative than thou" slugfests.

- - In the race for U.S. Senate, former radio gabber JD Hayworth is looking to unseat fellow Republican John McCain, pulling the heretofore not-exactly-liberal McCain into Hayworth's (and the Tea Party's) nativist, anti-government ideological territory.

All the while, Democrat Rodney Glassman is turning in his sigs, opening his Phoenix headquarters, and reaching out to *all* Arizona voters, not just the nativists.

- - In CD5, Republican perennial candidates Susan Bitter Smith and David Schweikert have been joined by electoral newcomers Jim Ward and Chris Salvino in their race to unseat Democratic incumbent and local icon Harry Mitchell. The Rs are running anti-immigrant/anti-Obama campaigns (Salvino's signs even start with "Stop Obama", not his name). Mitchell is working for his district, reining in Congressional pay, and protecting America's veterans.

-- In the CD3 battle royal to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg, there are at least a dozen open committees on the Republican side (Moak, Waring, Winkler, and Quayle have already filed their signatures) and they're all running as the "real" conservative in the race. They've been whipsawing between toeing the nativist line and nuzzling the corporate teat.

All the while, Jon Hulburd, the only Democrat in the race already in general election mode, talking to voters in the district and honing his message, starting with his number one issue, jobs.

-- In CD8, at least three Republicans, including SB1070 and payday loan industry supporter Jonathan Paton, are duking it out for a chance to face incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson). Paton, the presumed R nominee, has been spending time in Phoenix, far from his district, holding a $1000 per person fundraiser at an Arizona Diamondbacks game; Giffords countered with an event held much closer to home - Hi Corbett Field in Tucson at a Tucson Toros game.

- Lesson: We'll see in November. I might be mistaken about where this is all leading, but the Ds are doing things right while their erstwhile R challengers are trying to stick political knives in each other's backs and making the rounds of the usual suspects, hoping to schmooze them into opening their wallets.

Later...