The Maricopa County Attorney says that any prosecutors who charge Cheeto are "soft on crime"

I say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

From AP -

Republican prosecutor in Arizona takes swipe at New York district attorney prosecuting Trump

The Republican prosecutor of Arizona’s most populous county took a thinly veiled swipe at a Democratic counterpart in the East on Wednesday, saying she would not agree to extradition of a suspect in the death of a woman who was fatally bludgeoned in a New York City hotel room, and that he should be tried first in Arizona for stabbing two women here.

Raad Almansoori, 26, is being held without bond while Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell’s office decides how to charge him in connection with the stabbing of two women in the county in recent days, Mitchell said at a news conference. Those two women survived.

“Having observed the treatment of violent criminals in the New York area by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, I think it’s safer to keep him here and keep him in custody,” said Mitchell, referring to the prosecutor who brought the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump alleging that hush money was paid during his 2016 campaign to cover up an affair.

In Maricopa County Superior Court, Almansoori's case number is CR2024-108082-001.  This is not his first encounter with the justice system.

Mitchell absolutely *hates* violent criminals...unless they're well-connected.

From KJZZ, written by Matthew Casey, dated 2/9 -

Maricopa County attorney didn't charge former prisons director with aggravated assault. Here's why

After an armed standoff with police at his Tempe home, the former director of the state Department of Corrections was not charged with aggravated assault.

The Maricopa County attorney has kept a promise to explain that decision.

Tempe police said Charles Ryan pointed a gun at officers during a standoff at his home in 2022.

[snip]

Mitchell decided, based on a trove of body camera footage, Ryan’s medical records, and talks with Tempe police leaders, that prosecutors could not prove Ryan intended to make officers fear for their lives.

Ryan pleaded no contest to a gun charge, which prosecutors wanted labeled a felony.

In Maricopa County Superior Court, Ryan's case number was CR2022-001491-001.

Mitchell has a history of carrying Cheeto's water.

From PBS, dated 10/1/2018 -

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell says she wouldn’t charge Kavanaugh

The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned a California women accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault is explaining why she would not bring criminal charges against the Supreme Court nominee.

Rachel Mitchell writes in a new memo sent to Senate Republicans that she does not believe a “reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”

Mitchell is a Phoenix-based sex crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Christine Blasey Ford about her claims against Kavanaugh during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. Mitchell argues that that there are inconsistencies in Ford’s narrative and says no one has corroborated her account.

So...do they teach shameless hypocrisy in law school or was that already part of Mitchell's personality before her training?

Voting *for* a candidate: a guide

During an election cycle, particularly a long one like a presidential cycle, it's easy to lose sight of why we support this candidate or that candidate, losing ourselves in being against the "other".

The reasons why we support candidate "A" become subsumed by the fact that candidate "B" is an arrogant, avaricious plutocrat or the reasons that we support candidate "X" are drowned in the glare of candidate "Y's" bigotry, corruption, etc.

As easy as voting"against" can be, voting "for" is far more satisfying.  I've been voting for a while now.  Not gonna say how long, but the first presidential ticket that received my vote was Mondale/Ferraro.  You do the math. :)

While most of my votes have been "for" a candidate, too many have been for the "less bad" candidate.  The most satisfying votes that I've ever cast were for Harry Mitchell.  While he is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me politically, he based his positions, and his votes in office, on what he thought was in the best interests of his constituents.

Voting for him in 2010 when David Schweikert took advantage of the Republican wave that year to oust an icon was no less satisfying than voting for him in 2006 when Mitchell first won a seat in Congress.

Having said all of that, here's my "positive" take on my votes this year, why I voted "for" particular candidate.  There were lots of  "for" candidates this year -


- Barack Obama for President - I enthusiastically voted for him in 2008, and proudly did so again this year. 

In the face of intractable opposition (to the point that Republicans in Congress voted against bills that they had sponsored themselves if Obama supported them), he led the start of real healthcare reform, started winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fought for tax cuts for the working and middle classes, saved the American auto industry, and oversaw the end for Osama Bin Laden. 

To be sure, there were a few missteps, but even most of those just showed that the man is simply human (stay off the pitcher's mound, Mr. President :) ).

My biggest complaint with him is that he hasn't be liberal enough in his governance.

However, that dovetails with the biggest reason to vote to give him a second term - he has governed.  Not ruled, not dictated, not anything but do his job.

He has worked *for* his constituents, all of them, not just those who agree with him or give him campaign contributions.

You may not agree with everything he's done in office; I like and support him, and even *I* don't agree with everything that the Obama administration has done. 

However, he has done what he has done out of concern for the best interests of his constituents, which should be the motivation behind the positions and actions of *all* elected officials.

As such, he has more than earned a second term in the oval office.

Picture courtesy CNN

I promise that the rest of these will be much shorter.  :)

- Dr. Rich Carmona for U.S. Senate - This may be his first foray into electoral politics, but it's not his first foray into public service.  Not hardly.

In his storied career, he has been an Army medic (in Vietnam), a SWAT team leader, and Surgeon General of the United States.  His life story is the archetypal American success story - born to immigrant parents, worked to obtain an education, lifted himself out of poverty, and has spent his adult life in public service of one sort or another.

In short, he's the sort of person who *should* be in office because he has been where most of us have been.

Carmona talking to a supporter in Tempe, September 15

- Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Congress (CD9) - *Not* her first foray into electoral politics, but it's hardly her first foray into public service.  Like Carmona above, she bootstrapped her way out of poverty with education and hard work, and like Carmona, she has dedicated her life to serving the public.  In her case, she has been a social worker, attorney, and educator.

And like Carmona, she is the kind of person who should be in office representing us because she has been and is us.

Sinema at a candidate forum in July in Tempe

- Katie Hobbs (Senate) and Lela Alston and Chad Campbell (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD24 - They are each experienced, dedicated, intelligent, hard-working, and caring public servants and have earned another term in office.

(L-R) Hobbs, Alston, and Campbell at the LD24 Clean Elections forum in Phoenix, September 25th

Bonus legislative race:  Ed Ableser (Senate) and Juan Mendez and Andrew Sherwood (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD26 -  While they were not on my ballot (I live in LD24), all three are friends of mine and people who I respect.  They are active members of the community and have and will work for the betterment of the community.

 

 

(Standing L-R) Mendez, Sherwood, and Ableser at the LD26 Chili Cook-Off, April 28

 

- Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff - Penzone is a career cop who has based his career on *involving* the entire community, not demonizing* part of it for personal and political gain.  When he is elected, he'll bring a level of professionalism and integrity to the MCSO that hasn't been seen there in decades.

Penzone in Tempe, April 28 (same event as in the above pic, only a couple of hours earlier)

- Marcia Busching, Sandra Kennedy, and Paul Newman for the Arizona Corporation Commission - While the members of this trio bring a variety of experiences and backgrounds to the table, but they share a focus on ensuring Arizona's energy future.

Are all of the above candidates Democrats?  Yup.

But before the above is dismissed as "partisan hackery", one should ask if all of the above candidates are the "best" candidates. 

The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes".

Their primary concern has been (in the case of previous or current officeholders) or will be (in the case of future officeholders) the best interests of the people that they represent.

I don't expect to agree with them on every single issue, but I do expect that every person who "represents" me to hold positions, craft policies, and cast votes based on the best interests of their constituents.

And before anyone begins thinking that I've gone soft, an "against" post will follow this one.  :)

David Schapira - the positive candidate in CD9

Two negatives don't make a positive...but two overwhelmingly negative candidates may help propel the positive candidate in a race to a win.

The CD9 Democratic primary has become very negative.  Not as negative as the Rs in CD6 (Schweikert v. Quayle) where they are gay-baiting, or as the negative as the Rs in CD4 (Gosar v. Gould v. Murphy) where during their debate on KAET's Horizon one was left with the impression that if Gosar and Gould had knives, there would have been blood on the floor.

Still, in CD9, the half-truths and outright lies have been flying about with increasing frequency.

Kyrsten Sinema put out a mailer that attacks both of her opponents, Andrei Cherny and David Schapira, claiming that both Schapira and Cherny support public education-destroying school vouchers.  I can't speak for Cherny (don't know him that well), but in the six years that David Schapira has been representing me in the Arizona Legislature, he has always been a staunch defender of public education.

There is also a PAC/independent expenditure group named "Restoring Arizona's Integrity" that has spent more than $50K attacking Cherny.  That group has ties to the Sinema camp - the organizers of the committee are long-time lobbyists in AZ and the head of the lobbying firm has contributed to Sinema's campaign.

Another group, "Progressive Independent Committee" has begun weighing in with "hit pieces" (aka - negative mailers) against Sinema, against Sinema and Schapira, and robocalls (against Sinema, I think; not sure because I didn't get one of those).  The combo hit piece compared Schapira and Sinema to Republicans Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. 

Like many Democrats in the district, I have formed opinions of all three Ds in the CD9 race.  While most of us now support one candidate over the other two, that doesn't mean we believe that the other two are stupid and/or evil.  This particular mailer isn't just nasty, it may border on libel (and that's tough to pull off when talking about politicians).

That group is more shadowy.  Its organizer, Matthew D. Langley, is a political operative based in Tennessee.  His firm, MD Langley & Associates, has been administratively dissolved by the Tennessee Secretary of State for failure to file annual reports -

The filing problems continue with Langley, as he has been lax in filing Independent Expenditure reports for the committee, filing only one report (for the initial anti-Sinema mailers) but not doing so for his/the committee's other activity (the mailer that railed against both Sinema and Schapira and the robocalls).

Anyway, this committee seems to be the Cherny committee.  If the targets of its vitriol don't make that clear enough, how about this -

Langley used to work for a firm called Patton Technologies as Director of Compliance, and early in his campaign for Arizona Treasurer, Andrei Cherny hired, you guessed it, Patton Technologies.

Note to Mr. Langley if he bothers to read this: A "Director of Compliance" shouldn't have filing issues on his resume.  Just sayin'...


The negative blasts from from the Cherny and Sinema camps seem to be working against them and boosting Schapira, who has been running an unfailingly positive campaign - a recent poll (published in the Yellow Sheet, so I cannot link to it) shows Schapira with a small lead in the race, and a reception with former Congressman Harry Mitchell on Saturday night was just packed.

Next Wednesday,  the Arizona Democratic Party will hold the 2012 Forward Together unity rally in Phoenix. 

I have no doubt that regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's primary, David Schapira will be there to support all Democratic candidates.  I can't say I believe the same about the others.

And that fact, combined with his relentlessly positive campaign and the fact that he is the candidate most concerned with the people of the Ninth Congressional District, is why David Schapira is the best candidate in the race.

Harry Mitchell endorses David Schapira in the CD9 primary

I haven't written much about endorsements in the CD9 primary.  Generally, endorsement competitions degenerate into a "tit for tat" fight.  Most people and organizations that issue endorsements have their own agendas, agendas that may not synch up with the needs of a particular constituency or district.  That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just the way it is.

Most politically active people don't pay attention to them - we like it when our favorite candidate receives an endorsement, but most endorsements aren't deal-makers or deal-breakers for activists. 

However, there are a few endorsements that rise above the crowd.

Harry Mitchell's endorsement is one such that stands out.

He's been a part of Arizona as a public servant, friend, and mentor for more than four decades.

He is a former high school teacher, city council member, mayor, state senator, and member of Congress.

And during all of that, he has been a husband, father, and grandfather.

In short, when Harry talks, people listen (sorry EF Hutton)

The respect for him is so widely held, and the affection for him is so deeply felt, people who don't care about endorsements care about *his* endorsement. 

Well, in the CD9 primary, he has endorsed David Schapira, a state senator, school board member, father and husband himself.  From an email -

The primary in Congressional District 9 has pitted three of the brightest members of the Democratic Party in Arizona against each other. All three candidates are leaders in our state and I am honored to call them friends. I believe that each of them would serve admirably – and the creation of this new Tempe-centered district has presented a great opportunity to send a strong community-based representative to Congress.

Tempe has always been different than other cities, especially when it comes to elections. Yes, we’ve disagreed on issues and done so passionately. Yes, we’ve debated and we’ve fought hard. But the nature of our politics has become increasingly polarized and divisive. We witnessed it in the last mayoral race. It was discouraging, to say the least. This is also why I didn’t wade into endorsing a candidate in this race lightly.

I believe it is important that we elect someone who understands and values our community – and will work hard to represent it. This is why I’ve decided to cast my primary vote for Tempe’s State Senator, David Schapira.

I’ve often said that you can’t be successful unless other people want you to be. For the better part of 40 years, I’ve held the titles of teacher, councilman, mayor, senator and Congressman. I’ve been blessed to have so many people in our community be supportive of me. This is why I hope you will join me in supporting David Schapira for Congress.

Harry Mitchell 

          


Later...

Early speculation time: 2014 Governor's race - Part Two

A few days ago, I posted a snark-filled piece full of speculation on possible Republican candidates for governor in 2014.

Out of a sense of fairness, I'm now doing one on potential Democratic candidates.

Out of a sense of partisanship, it will be less snarky...at least, less snarky toward the Democratic candidates. :)

As with the prior post, no actual discussions with the potential candidates took place in the production of this post.  In no way does a mention in this post indicate that someone is planning or interested in running for governor of Arizona, nor does lack of a mention in this post indicate that someone is *not* planning or interested in running for governor of Arizona.

As with the previous post on this topic, the names mentioned are those who have held office previously or who have otherwise made an impact on the metaphorical public square.

On to the speculation:

Terry Goddard, former attorney general and candidate for governor:
- Con: has run for governor and lost, twice.
- Pro: both of the ultimate victors of the races for governor (Fife Symington, Jan Brewer) that he was in have brought great national ridicule down upon Arizona.  The voters may finally be ready to choose competence over ideological blathering.
- Con2:  This is Arizona.  Don't hold your breath.

Janet Napolitano, former governor:
- Con: she resigned as governor in 2009 to take a position in President Barack Obama's cabinet, leaving Arizona fading in her rear-view mirror.
- Pro: regardless of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, she may be interested in moving on - - if the Rs win, a whole new cabinet will be brought in to DC; if Obama wins, pretty much the same will happen.  Second term presidential cabinets are usually very different than the cabinets for the first term of the same president.  And three-plus years of "Governor Jan Brewer" have only served to increase the amount of respect people have for Napolitano.
- Con2: as Secretary of Homeland Security, Napolitano has only had to deal with terrorists, spies, and grave threats to America.  As governor, she might not be willing to again deal with scourges upon society like the Arizona legislature, the Goldwater Institute, and the Center for Arizona Policy.

Gabrielle Giffords, former member of Congress:
- Con: still recovering from a horrific assassination attempt that took the lives of six people, including a small child, and injured more than a dozen other people.
- Pro: if her recovery, already nothing short of miraculous, progresses well enough for her to handle the rigors of the job, and she actually wants the job, the election will be less a contest than a walk-over.

Harry Mitchell, former member of Congress:
- Con: after nearly five decades of public service, he may have reached the point of his life where he is ready to leave the "top of the ballot" stuff - walking precincts and making appearances on the rubber chicken circuit to those with younger legs and digestive tracts.
- Pro: one of the most respected people in Arizona politics, and one of the few left where the respect genuinely crosses partisan lines.

Phil Gordon, former mayor of Phoenix -
- Pro: still has an effective organization and base of support in what is the largest city and county in the state.
- Con: the Rs despise him, and he is far from popular with grassroots Ds, even in Maricopa County, outside of Phoenix.

Greg Stanton, current mayor of Phoenix -
- Pro: also has an effective organization and base of support in what is the largest city and county in the state.  In addition, he is so new that he hasn't had time to tick off grassroots Ds.
- Con: the Rs despise him, despite knowing next to nothing about him (other than that he isn't one of them), and he is young by political standards.
- Pro2: he may be too young/new for an effective run in 2014, but 2018 and 2022 are well within the realm of realistic possibility.

Felecia Rotellini, 2010 candidate for attorney general -
- Pro: while she didn't win in 2010, she had the best performance of any D candidate during that cycle and garnered a lot of respect across the political spectrum.  She's smart, energetic, and universally well-liked among Democrats.  It helps that the guy who won the 2010 election, Tom Horne, is widely considered to be a sleazeball and is under federal investigation for campaign finance violations.
Con - while she's been a public servant before, she has never actually held elected office.  Like Napolitano before her, a term as AG might be necessary to elevate her name recognition among the general public before running for the top spot.

Sandra Kennedy, current member of the Arizona Corporation Commission -
- Pro: intelligent, experienced and one of only two Democrats to hold statewide elected office.
- Con: as with Brenda Burns in the previous post, the ACC isn't the highest-profile perch from which to launch a run at a high-profile job.  Unlike Burns however, Kennedy actually does some good work for the people of AZ, and as such, she doesn't have access to scads of corporate money.

Other names that may come up in conversation:

Rep. Chad Campbell, House minority leader: smart but young enough that like Stanton above, 2014 may be too soon; Kyrsten Sinema, former state legislator and current candidate for Congress: also young, and has her sights set much higher than the 9th floor of the Executive Tower; Steve Gallardo, state legislator: could go for it in 2014, but young enough to wait until 2018/2022 and use the time to both consolidate and expand his base of support; Ruben Gallego, state legislator:  if the others are young by political standards, he's a bambino.  A bambino with ambition, however.  2014 is too soon, and 2018/2022 may also be too soon, but after that...?; Neil Giuliano, former Republican and former mayor of Tempe:  made noises about a run in 2010, but was pretty much unknown outside of Tempe.  Would need to elevate his name rec among the general public.

A couple of wildcards:

Sue Gerard and Kris Mayes, the former head of the state Department of Health Services and chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission, respectively.  They're Republicans who have actually done good work for the people of Arizona.  As such, they'd never get through a Republican primary in the current political environment.  Not likely to even consider becoming Democrats, but given the amount of respect that people have for them, they could make things interesting.

Later...

Interesting phone call for a Sunday evening...

The district lines haven't even been finalized yet, but I received my first polling call of the election season.

Six potential candidates were mentioned, but only three were the focus of the call.

Mentioned only:

Harry Mitchell, the former teacher, mayor, city council member, state senator and current husband, father, grandfather, icon and mentor (geez, is it too obvious that I really wish Harry would reconsider his decision not to run next year?  :) )

Neil Giuliano, the former Republican mayor of Tempe and current Democrat

David Schapira, the current state senator from LD17 and Senate Democratic leader


Focused on:

Kyrsten Sinema, current LD15 state senator and author (and many other things).  Easily the most liberal member of this field

Andrei Cherny, current chair of the Arizona Democratic Party and former staffer in the Clinton White House

Jon Hulburd, a lawyer, businessman, and 2010 candidate for Congress in the current CD3.  Easily the most conservative member of this field


The call was pretty standard with questions about if I thought the country/state/my area was headed in the right direction, rating the importance of certain issues in next year's election and general impressions some potential candidates (the six named above), voting habits, and so on.

Then the call moved into thoughts on potential matchups between specific candidates.

The potential matchups named were Sinema-Hulburd, Hulburd-Cherny, Harry-Cherny (I think.  My notes went kind of fuzzy here.  Turns out I have trouble taking good notes while keeping one eye on the baseball game, posting my status on Facebook, holding my cell phone to one ear and typing one-handed.  Who knew? LOL), and Sinema-Cherny-Hulburd.

Then it moved into a sorta-push poll/testing possible negative messages section, reciting a list of negative statements about Sinema and Hulburd and asking me if the statements impacted my opinions of the pair.

Obviously, I can't state definitively who put the poll in the field, but given that the surveyor focused on three candidates, and only tested negative messages about two of them...well, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy (not necessarily a perfect approach in assessing political developments, but it'll do this far out from the election)...

What I can state definitively to the folks behind this poll, and to anyone else considering entering the race is that my support and vote won't go to the candidate with the strongest progressive bonafides or who runs as the most Republican-lite or has the most polished professional resume.

The candidate who I think will work hardest for the district and the state will get my support and vote.  I certainly had my disagreements with some of Harry Mitchell's votes and positions on individual issues, but his votes and positions were what he thought was right for the best interests of his constituents.

He may have chosen to forego another campaign, but I expect no less from any candidate that wants my support.

 I know, that attitude may be a little naively idealistic, perhaps surprisingly so for someone as cynical as me, but that's the way it is.

Let the infighting begin...

Edit on 10/24 to add:

Last night I received a phone call from someone who is in a position to know about these things (aka - someone who is more of a campaign insider than me), and they informed me that Occam's Razor is a little dull.  They informed me that the campaign that I hinted may have been behind the poll in fact wasn't, and that it was one of the other two candidates.

Since paying for polls is generally listed as a campaign expense (though it is an expense that is frequently is not listed directly but is buried in "consulting fees"), I did a little research on the FEC's website and found that only one of the three, Jon Hulburd, has an active campaign committee.  In fact, that candidate's committee just filed a Statement of Organization on September 9, 2011.

FWIW, while this news doesn't raise or lower my opinion of any of the candidates, it is research I should have done before posting.  I promise to do a better job in future coverage.

End edit...

Campaign committees update...

...and some sad news in the "he's not running" department..

First up, the sad news - Harry Mitchell, the long-time Tempe (and Arizona) icon announced that he will NOT seek election to Congress next year.

From his Facebook page -

"While having the confidence, energy and strong support for a successful campaign in a new Tempe-centered district, I’ve decided against pursuing it. While my life in public service has taught me that positive change – no matter how difficult – is possible, I’d rather spend my energy here at home than be steeped in the partisan infighting, gridlock and subsequent dysfunction that has overtaken Washington. I, like many others, simply do not have the patience for that anymore."

While the selfish part of me hopes that he reconsiders his decision, the part of me that is in awe of his more than four decades of public service (teacher, councilman, mayor, state senator, U.S. Congressman) only says -

THANK YOU HARRY!

I respect his decision, but fervently wish it was otherwise. 

There will be more (lots more!) written about this at a later time.  Right now, on to the rest of the post.

Note:  Where a legislative or Congressional district is specified, that number is likely to change once the redistricting process is complete.

In U.S. Congress campaign news, Tucson lawyer Christopher Scileppi has formed a committee to run for CD7 as a GOPer.

Seriously, where the FEC's form asks for partisan affiliation, he entered "GOP".

 
...Warren Petersen of Gilbert has formed a committee for a run at the Republican nomination for Arizona House of Representatives in LD22.  I think he's a real estate agent (his name doesn't make for the best search terms).
 
...Chris Schaffner of north Scottsdale has formed a committee for a run at Scottsdale City Council.  The forms on Scottsdale's election website aren't linkable, but he lists his occupation as "account manager" at Milliken.
 
...In Tempe, Derek Deutsch and Joseph Pospicil Jr. (exploratory) have formed $500 Threshold exemption committees for runs at Tempe City Council.  Deutsch ran as a Libertarian for the Kyrene Justice of the Peace job last year (he never made it on to the ballot).  Couldn't find out much about Pospicil, though I *think* he's a Libertarian, too, but I'm not absolutely sure about it.
 
Later...

Tuesday's Event: Eat, Drink and Thank Harry

From the Arizona Democratic Party  (follow the link to make a contribution) -



#SchweikertFail: Some things aren't dilemmas for true public servants

In baseball, some players are "batting practice heroes," and some are "gamers."


The same is true in politics - there are wannabes, who put on a spectacular show when it doesn't count, and there are actual public servants who do the work in the trenches of public policy, taking positions and casting votes that certain of their supporters won't like (and that they themselves may not particularly like), but that are in the best interests of their constituents.

Congressman David Schweikert is shaping up as a wannabe, not a real, public servant.

From the Washington Post -

On his 104th day in office, Rep. David Schweikert stepped before about 60 of his constituents here and, like an economics professor, flipped through one scary chart after another to hammer home his point: America faces a tidal wave of debt.
Then he asked for a show of hands: If you were a freshman congressman like him, would you vote to raise the government’s debt limit?

{snip}

This is his dilemma: He knows Congress has little choice but to raise the amount of money the government can borrow to prevent the economic havoc sure to follow if the United States defaults on its loans. He also knows doing so is deeply unpopular — not only among his conservative base, but among some moderates and liberals, too.


“I desperately want to vote ‘no,’ ” Schweikert said at the town hall. “I also desperately don’t want [the economy] to crash.”

If Schweikert finds himself in a difficult political spot, it’s partly of his own making. He and the scores of other Republicans who were elected last fall ran on an unyielding pledge to cut spending, reduce the nation’s debt and generally get the country’s finances in order, a mission that has been fully embraced by party leaders in Washington.

When Harry Mitchell was in Congress, there were a number of times when I disagreed with his votes on certain measures, but I never disagreed with his motivation for those votes - trying to find the best way to serve the interests of the people of the 5th Congressional District.  He was willing to set aside his personal ideology to do what he thought was right by his constituents.

He didn't necessarily like all of the votes, but he cast the votes he thought were necessary.

David Schweikert?

If he played baseball, he'd lead the league in batting practice homers.

The Fiesta Bowl Scandal and Russell Pearce

The news that a number of Arizona politicos may have improperly accepted gifts and illegal campaign contributions broke this week with the release of a report from the Fiesta Bowl investigating its own practices.

The investigators examined a number of campaign finance reports looking for contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees that were later reimbursed by the organization.  They also looked at Fiesta Bowl records to determine where, when, and how much was spent to influence public officials.

A few (7?) Democrats (Harry Mitchell, Linda Lopez, Ben Arredondo, etc.) were implicated in one or another aspect of the burgeoning scandal, as were a large number of Republicans (25+), both electeds (Russell Pearce, Carolyn Allen, Thayer Verschoor, etc.) and behind-the-scenes "fixers" - aka "lobbyists" or "consultants" (Chuck Coughlin, Doug Cole, Gary Husk, etc.).

As I'm not a lawyer, I'm not qualified to comment on the legal implications for the politicos implicated.  However, I can speak a little bit about the political implications for the electeds.

Many, such as Ds Mitchell and Mary Manross (former mayor of Scottsdale) and Rs Verschoor and Allen, aren't in office right now and may not seek office again, so the political impact will be minimal.

Note: I've been told that, at least, neither Manross nor Allen are interested in future runs for office, but that info is many months old, and may have changed.

A few of the others have quietly reimbursed the Fiesta Bowl for any "gifts" that they received but most are otherwise maintaining a low profile, waiting to see how this develops.

However, Senate President Russell Pearce (R-Blacklist) has never been known for being quiet.

Or even for learning lessons from the missteps of others.

His colleague and ally, Senate majority leader Scott Bundgaard was involved in a domestic violence incident in February, which was bad enough.

However, Bundgaard aggravated the scandal when he just wouldn't shut up, issuing press releases left and right, blaming his now ex-girlfriend and pleading for everyone to respect his privacy, to concocting a story that his ex pulled a gun on him (one that turned out to be his own) in spite of a police report that doesn't mention a gun anywhere in it.

Now, he's no longer Senate majority leader, and his political future is murky at best (OK, he's probably toast in the next primary, but journalists, even quasi-journalists like bloggers, have "weasel word" standards to meet :) ).

Pearce obviously hasn't been paying attention to Bungaard's mishandling of his own misconduct.

Pearce has claimed that he paid for his own tickets to some of the football games for which the Fiesta Bowl groups organized legislative junkets.

From the Arizona Republic article, written by Ginger Rough and Alia Beard Rau, linked to "news" above -

Pearce had been mostly silent on his involvement until Friday, when he told The Republic that he had paid for his tickets and that he was "very disappointed" in the bowl and its activities.

Asked when he paid for his tickets, Pearce said: "Immediately, at the time."

But Pearce's comments conflict with a portion of the report that states Fiesta Bowl employees paid for, and then were reimbursed by the bowl for, non-Fiesta Bowl tickets given to Pearce in 2007 and 2008.

Hmmm....

Now, not having access to Pearce's personal financial records (or anyone else's, for that matter), I cannot state unequivocally that Pearce did not pay for the tickets himself.  However, based on public records, I can say that he definitely didn't report a junket and a game in 2005 (page 178 of the Fiesta Bowl report) in his 2006 Financial Disclosure Statement, covering the 2005 calendar year.

Submitted in early January 2006 and amended at the end of January 2006, he reported gifts valued in excess of $500 from the American Legislative Exchange Council, Republican Club of (illegible), Western Growers Association, Brookings Institute, and NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures).

Nothing related to the Fiesta Bowl or college football was reported.

Hmmm2...

Here are some relevent financial disclosure reports for the electeds named in the report as being part of the 2005 trip, courtesy the Center for Public Integrity (the reports cover the prior calendar year) -


Pearce 2005 2004 2003 2002

Bob Blendu 2006 2005 2004

Linda Lopez 2006 2005 2004

Linda Aguirre 2006 2005 2004


Of the four named specifically, only two are still legislators.

 Linda Lopez reported the trip in her 2006 disclosure. 

Pearce?  Not a mention.

Hmmm3...


There's also a sign that perhaps investigators should not have looked at only reports of campaign contributions, but also at reported expenses.

On page 179 of the Fiesta Bowl report, a junket to Boston was documented, one that Pearce attended.  Part of the junket: a college football game between Boston College and Virginia Tech on October 18.

In Russell Pearce's post-general election campaign finance report from 2008, covering October 16 thru November 24 of that year, he reported a "miscellaneous" expenditure of $675.00, dated November 4, 2008.

If that one turns out to be junket-related, it could be problematical for Pearce - he accepted Clean Elections funding that year, and they take a rather dim view of candidates who use the money in ways that are other than directly related to the campaign.

To be fair, the Fiesta Bowl investigators were mostly interested in the activities of their own organization, not those of the elected officials.

Future investigators, both journalistic and law enforcement, will certainly pay more attention to how the electeds reported their associations with the Fiesta Bowl.

The upshot of it all is that everyone involved is hoping this blows over, that current events distract the public from the past misconduct - the business administrators of college football don't want investigations of the other bowls, who almost certainly operate in a manner similar to the Fiesta Bowl, and the electeds don't want to be on the receiving end of any political repercussions.

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that the report was released during the final week of the NCAA basketball tournament, when college sports fans, even casual ones, are thoroughly focused on that?

Or that the House this week rushed through a horrific budget allowing them to end the legislative session and get out of town and out of the reach of reporters, as quickly as possible?

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion offers his perspective on this mess here; AZBlueMeanie of Blog for Arizona has his here.


Note:  The Center for Public Integrity only has the financial disclosure reports for the first half of the decade.  I could not find the reports from later in the decade online, and the Republic story reports that they are having difficulty obtaining those reports from the Secretary of State's office. 

Anybody really surprised by that?

2012 Congressional Speculation

With Senate candidate speculation running wild across Arizona (Flake in, Shadegg out, Arpaio flirting, Democrats waiting until summer to see what happens with Gabrielle Giffords' recovery), now folks are starting with speculation regarding possible Congressional runs.

Some of the names so far, mostly in a run for Jeff Flake's seat (CD6) sort of way, but not really, since redistricting could make the current CD6 a totally different district (with a couple of other committees thrown in for good measure) -

Republican Kirk Adams, speaker of the Arizona House, from East Mesa

Republican Russell Pearce, president of the Arizona Senate, from Central/West Mesa

Republican Scott Smith, Mayor of Mesa

Republican Chuck Gray, former state senator from LD19 (East Mesa), close to Pearce so probably won't jump into the race if Pearce actually runs

Republican Jay Tibshraeny, current Mayor of Chandler,  former state senator, and previously considered an heir-apparent for Flake's seat if Flake moved on/out.  Redistricting could affect his decision to run/not run (that caveat could apply to almost every possible candidate, so consider it applied for each one)

Republican Rich Crandall, current state senator from East Mesa.  Crandall, Adams, and Gray are all from the same district, LD19, but they aren't close friends by any stretch and could easily end up knocking each other off, helping Smith (if he jumps in)

Republican Gabriela Saucedo Mercer has opened a committee to run against Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva in CD7.  Haven't heard of her before this and don't know much about her.  However, if she's a serious candidate (and not just a fringe tea party type), we'll know more later in the year
Republican David Schweikert has opened a reelection committee for his seat

Democrat Harry Mitchell hasn't ruled out a run for a rematch with Schweikert, looking to reclaim the seat he formerly held

Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, like Mitchell a former member of Congress, may also run again

Republican Hugh Hallman, Mayor of Tempe, has ambitions for higher office, but any run for Congress will depend on redistricting and which other candidates jump in

Democrat Neil Giuliano, former Mayor of Tempe and former Republican, could also jump in, especially if Mitchell decides against a run.  I don't know how close he and Giuliano are, but Mitchell is the political force of nature in Tempe, so his decision will affect that of the other potential candidates

Democrat Phil Gordon, current Mayor of Phoenix whose term expires this year.  Noted for his ambition and his Phoenix-based campaign machine, if he doesn't go for the Senate seat, is seen as likely to pursue a Congressional run.  Of course, he could go for Governor in 2014, or for McCain's Senate seat in 2016, or...? :)

Republican State Senator Rick Murphy, a former (and future?) Congressional candidate, has opened a $500 Threshold Committee for a run at the Peoria Unified School District Governing Board.  Someone like Murphy standing for a public school committee slot is like someone like me standing for chair of the AZGOP.  Except that I don't want to kill off and bury the AZGOP, just help defeat them at the ballot box


There will be other names out there once the new district maps are drawn, and once the field for the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate seat sorts itself out.

Later...

Candlelight vigil for today's shooting victims

From the Arizona State Capitol tonight...

Harry Mitchell, one of Giffords colleagues in both the US House and the AZ Senate, speaking briefly at the vigil.

Impromptu memorial for Judge John Roll, one of the victims fatally shot today

Flags at the AZ Capitol at half staff as the sun goes down

The crowd at the vigil, more than 250 strong, sharing their grief and prayers

Congressman Harry Mitchell's farewell to Congress

From page H8247 of the Congressional Record -

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall once said that those elected to positions of leadership have a moral obligation to exercise leadership. Since coming to Congress, and throughout my whole career, I have always done what I believed was in the best interests for this district, for our State, and for our country. This is what I was elected to do, to make tough decisions, knowing that some were not always as popular as others; and I would not have changed one thing, not one vote, not one decision.


When I think about what we have accomplished together in Congress over the last 4 years, I know that there are many reasons to be proud. We were able to make college more affordable for millions of young Americans. We were able to invest in clean energy technology that will clean our environment and set our Nation on a path to energy independence.

We raised the minimum wage for working families across this country. We were able to ensure equal pay for an equal day's work for women. We passed historic health care reform that will benefit millions of Americans, making health care insurance more accessible and affordable for thousands of individuals, families, and small businesses.

But I am most proud of the work we've done to take care of our Nation's veterans. Together, we made it possible for our veterans, active duty, National Guard, and reserve to empower themselves by furthering their education. I was honored to be part of an effort to pass the 21st century GI Bill into law.

We also know that many of our returning veterans and those who served in past generations bear wounds that can't be seen. Too many continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and are at risk for suicide. Together, we've pushed the VA to provide more mental health assistance to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan because our veterans deserve the highest attention and respect they have earned when they come home, and we have work to do to bring them all home.

But as much as we've accomplished, there is still more to do. I have always said that you can't be successful unless a lot of other people want you to be. And I have been blessed to have so many people who have been supportive of me. For the better part of close to 40 years, I've held the titles of teacher, councilman, mayor, senator, and Congressman.

And there are a lot of people I want to thank for being with me every step of the way. A special thanks goes to my family: My wife, Marianne; my son, Mark; my daughter, Amy; and my five grandchildren. I also want to thank my staff. They were the most hardworking, talented, and loyal bunch that you would ever find, and I am very grateful for them. Lastly, I want to thank the people of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District for allowing me to represent them in the United States Congress for the past 4 years. It's been an overwhelming honor to have had the opportunity to serve my district.

Thank you Harry, for your work for the people of CD5 and for America's veterans.  And thank you for reminding us why we voted for you in the first place and why you were the best representative that any Congressional district could ask for.

I'd say something along the lines of "you will be missed" but I don't believe your lifetime of service is over.  You aren't ready to ride off into the Arizona sunset and we aren't ready to let you.

Thank you.

Ugh.

Chalk one up for the politics of demonization.  A big one...

Last night was definitely ugly.

Many good people, and at least one great one, lost their jobs last night.

The results page on the AZ Secretary of State's website is here.

First, the genuinely ugly - Harry Mitchell, the icon of public service, lost the CD5 race to real estate vulture David Schweikert.  Apparently, the majority of voters in CD5 have decided that they don't want a public servant to represent them in Congress, instead giving their nod to a public predator (geez, can ya tell I'm still pissed over this one? ).

The entire Schweikert campaign platform can be summed up thusly:  Obamacare!

Seriously, that was it. 

I was on sign detail for one of the down ballot candidates here, and every polling place had at least 5 - 8 little signs that had one word on them - "Obamacare."  Sometimes they were placed at random, sometimes they were placed next to Mitchell signs, and at least once, place *in* a Mitchell sign.

More on this race in the next few days, after I decompress.

...There was lots of bad (some really bad) on Tuesday.

- The Rs swept the statewide races.  Some of the D losses were expected, but to elect two people who have long records of being crooks to positions of great public trust like Attorney General and Treasurer?

As noted above, last night was a triumph of the politics of demonization, but "willful ignorance" also ran wild in Arizona on Tuesday.

- The Rs also increased their majority in the legislature, mostly by knocking off a number of Democratic women.

Former State Representative Jackie Thrasher (LD10) lost her bid to return to the House, down by almost 3000 votes.

State Representative Rae Waters (LD20) is down 1400 votes in her reelection bid.

State Senator Rebecca Rios (LD23)  is down almost 5000 votes her race.

State Representative Barbara McGuire (LD23) is down almost 7000 votes.

State Senator Amanda Aguirre (LD24) is down more than 3000 votes in her race.

State Representative Pat Fleming (LD25) is down more than 3000 votes.

State Representative Nancy Young Wright (LD26) is down slightly less than 900 votes in her race.

In keeping with the Rs' anti-woman theme, Dirty Scottsdale writer and "chip off the ol' potatoe" Ben Quayle won the CD3 seat being vacated by John Shadegg.  His opponent ran as a Republican dressed up in a Democrat's clothing.  Turns out that didn't inspire the D base to turn out.  Who knew?

The politics of demonization was effective on a number of ballot propositions, too.

Prop 106 (anti-healthcare reform), Prop 107 (anti-affirmative action), and Prop 113 (anti-union) were all approved by the voters.

...There were a few nuggets of good in yesterday's carnage.  OK, less "good" than "not horrificly bad" -

 - Prop 301 (ending and sweeping the monies from the Land Conservation Fund) and Prop 302 (ending First Things First, the early childhood education program that was created by the voters in a previous election) have been turned away by the voters.  The Rs in the lege will use this as a rationalization to further gut education and social infrastructure programs in the name of "balancing the budget," but they were going to that anyway.  They just would have found a different excuse if the Props had passed.

- In out-of-state results that may have a direct impact on Arizona, Kris Kobach, the nativist lawyer who wrote SB1070 for fellow traveller Russell Pearce, won his election as Secretary of State in Kansas.  He'll be overseeing elections there.  He ran on a anti-immigrant platform, and has pledged to work to minimize the number of immigrants voting there.  God help Kansas.  On the plus side, we can always hope that his duties/schemes in KS serve to distract him from Arizona.

- Also turned away were R challenges to U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) and Raul Grijalva (CD7) (however, CD8 remains close, so there is a chance that one will change, though Giffords is ahead by approximately 2000 votes as of this writing.)

- In my home LD, District 17, State Rep. David Schapira has fended off what had appeared to be a strong challenger for the LD17 Senate seat.  Wendy Rogers was touted as the kind of conservative who could win in a Democratic-leaning swing district.  Turns out she was actually just a polished version of her ticketmate, Don Hawker.  House candidate Hawker was the epitome of the "single issue" candidate, literally blaming all that ails Arizona (and the country) on abortion.

Both were wrong for the community, wrong for the district, and wrong for the state, and voters in D17 saw that.  One of the advantages of living in a district with a lot of university professors and students in it.

- In some of the down ballot races, there was some good news -

Retiring State Senator Meg Burton Cahill defeated a retired barber for the Justice of the Peace spot in the University Lakes Justice Precinct.  Some ugly robocalls funded by the Arizona Multihousing Association failed to defeat the popular Tempean.

Dana Saar of Fountain Hills defeated embarrassment Jerry Walker of Mesa for Walker's seat on the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District.  Walker has shamed his constituents and the District a number of times with his thuggish behavior.  Saar taking the seat will help restore the credibility of this embattled board.


...The one spark of hope, in Arizona and across the nation, that I can find from yesterday's results (and I had to dig deep to find this one) -

In 1994, that national R wave occurred two years *after* redistricting took place.  

In 2010, the wave took place two years *before* redistricting.  The Rs, especially the tea baggers, won't have time to entrench themselves before having to run in radically different districts in 2012.

More later, on CD5 and some of the local races and ballot questions...

Spin, Half-truths and Lies: Schweikert campaign running on empty

...but that's all they have left...and "half-truths" may be giving them too much credit...

Early yesterday, the Schweikert campaign breathlessly sent out an email press release, touting a police report in Tempe concerning a Tempe resident who "pushed down" two anti-Mitchell signs.

The one piece of truth?  Such an incident did, in fact, occur, at least according to this police report (courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times).

After that, the press release gets more than a little light on facts.

The press release starts by conflating this incident with a 2000 incident where Mitchell was accused of stealing some signs.

The press release pontificates on that one with "[t]here was no question that Congressman Mitchell broke the law then."

The problem with that? 

The charges were dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal.  No matter how often Rs like to bring up the incident from 2000, they always seem to forget to mention that a judge ruled that no crime occurred.

Call this one the "half-truth, barely" part.

The press release then goes on to include a picture of some signs with "the kind of damage that has been occurring."

The problem with that?

The picture included in the press release wasn't of the signs that were part of the incident detailed in the police report.  It was of some of the unsightly "insult" signs that Schweikert has carpetbombed CD5 with.  The pic looks to have been staged in a parking lot, perhaps outside of Schweikert's campaign headquarters (I don't actually know where it was staged, just that it definitely looks staged).

Call this one the "spun into an outright lie" part, but at least it gave them an excuse to push their lies about Harry Mitchell one more time.

The Arizona Capitol Times has a story up that refutes the Schweikert campaign's spin and press release. 

In it, the writer points out that neither the alleged "damager" nor the complainer involved in the incident are directly involved in either the Mitchell or the Schweikert campaigns other than in expressing support for the respective candidates.  Speaking personally, I've been a frequent visitor to the Mitchell campaign office in Tempe, and I've never heard of the man accused of damaging the signs.

The Schweikert supporter, however, is a somewhat different story.

I've never heard of him by name, but he is quoted in the police report saying that he "has a company called Jet Media."

The Cap Times' story quotes Jim Torgeson, the owner of Jet Media, as claiming that the signs weren't commissioned by the Schweikert campaign.

From the story -

"But Jet Media owner Jim Torgeson said that Sanders’ signs were not commissioned by the Schweikert campaign, and that they personally belonged to Sanders, not the company."

That opens up a big can of worms for the Schweikert campaign.

The press release claims very specifically that the signs involved in the Tempe incident *are* the property of the Schweikert campaign.

From the press release -

"The signs in question are the property of David Schweikert’s campaign."

That's pretty unequivocal.

It also means that someone is violating campaign finance laws.

Either the complainer owns them and is engaging in political advocacy without filing campaign finance paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (which he hasn't), or Schweikert owns them and needs to put the appropriate "paid for by" on the signs (which he hasn't, apparently, because there isn't one on the signs.)

Other issues -

Mr. Torgeson is a Republican operative of long standing, using his sign company to harass Democratic candidates in Tempe for years now.

Mr. Torgeson's company, Jet Media, received over $7400 worth of sign business from the Schweikert campaign just between late August and late September, according to Schweikert's FEC filings.  I don't know if the signs that the Schweikert campaign purchased from Torgeson were the ones involved in the above incident, but that's a lot of money going to a small sign company relatively late in the cycle.

Mr. Torgeson is listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as President of Jet Media Promotions, Inc.  That corporation was administratively dissolved by the ACC earlier this year because of its failure to file an annual report.  Not sure how/if that impacts the legal operation of the sign business, but it's definitely sloppy on Mr. Torgeson's part.


Still, given that we are now less than five days from Election Day, this is just a meaningless distraction.  Any proceedings stemming from the above incident will take weeks or even months to run to completion; any possible campaign finance violations could take *years* to resolve.

Time to do a little canvassing.

Later...

CD5: All Politics Isn't Just Local, It's People

Nearly two decades ago, former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill published a followup to his best-selling autobiography (Man of the House) titled "All Politics Is Local."

That's a truism that all successful elected officials, before and since, have taken to heart.  Taking care of the district that elected them and understanding its needs is paramount for any elected looking to be a "re-elected."

Even more important than that, though, is people.

Specific artificially-created land areas on a map like political districts don't have needs, the people who live in those districts do.

Districts don't vote for candidates, people do.

And most importantly for the point of this post, districts don't form the backbones of political campaigns, people do.

The ground game of any campaign, particularly in a close race like CD5, is what makes the difference on Election Day.

An effective ground game that connects with voters can turn back a high-powered and heavily-funded aerial attack.

All of the TV ads and mailers funded by secretive corporate front groups and bungee campaign appearances by national figures employed by Fox News mean nothing next to volunteers talking to their neighbors.

In this, Harry Mitchell's lifetime of service to Tempe, Scottsdale, and Arizona is standing him in good stead. 

People are turning out in droves to help defend the man who has worked for them for decades, from teaching their children in school to advocating for them in the halls of Congress.

His ground game, hundreds of volunteers dialing or knocking and talking, is thumping the Schweikert campaign's. 

Over Columbus Day weekend, the Schweikert campaign bragged about making 5000 calls to voters.

By comparison, the Mitchell campaign made over 50,000 calls that same weekend.

It's not just on the holiday weekends that the respect and affection for Mitchell is showing through.

Anecdotally, this past weekend, I was at the Mitchell campaign office to make some calls.  I put down my stuff to go get some water before getting on the phones.  By the time I returned to that particular phone just a couple of minutes later, somebody else had already moved in to that seat and was making calls.  I had to wait a little while (~15 minutes) before another station opened up.

More than the volunteers in the office and out walking in neighborhoods, thousands of voters across the district have turned out for dozens of house parties for Mitchell.

By contrast, the Schweikert campaign's ground game seems to be floundering.

Just this past weekend, they sent out a "desperate" call for volunteers (their word, not mine) to do the things that the Mitchell campaign's volunteers have been doing for months - walk and talk to their neighbors.

Early last week, they sent out an equally desperate email, calling for "volunteers" to make their campaign office look busy during a visit from a reporter from the national political news site, Politico.

From the email from the Schweikert campaign's volunteer director, forwarded to me (misspellings theirs, not mine) -

I am in urgent need of your help. I need a ton of phone callers in the office tomorrow from 1:30pm until 3:30pm.. Here is why-- We have reporters coming in from one of the biggest political sites in the nation. We need to look like the best run, well staffed campaign in the natin..

I've never seen such an email from the Mitchell campaign, even though they also received a visit from a Politico reporter.
There's no need for it - -the only times when I haven't seen the office busy is when most volunteers were out walking neighborhoods.


The sad thing is, in a close race in a Republican-leaning swing district, money can make a difference, and David Schweikert has access to a LOT of out-of-state corporate cash.  Just during the writing of this post, I've seen at least three Schweikert spots on TV, none actually paid for by Schweikert. (My favorite:  the perfectly-timed for Halloween spot paid for by John McCain with McCain and Jon Kyl touting Schweikert while wearing dark suits in front of a black background.  They look like disembodied heads floating in the air from a cheesy grade-Z horror movie from the 1950s.  Seriously spooky.)

He may not be *earning* the seat, but we are in danger of he and his allies *buying* the seat.

There are eight days left before the election, and Harry Mitchell needs our support, votes, and time more than ever.  Keeping the phones staffed and neighborhoods covered is what will put Harry over the top.

Sign up here to volunteer to walk or call voters between now and Election Day.

Harry Mitchell on KNXV-TV

Harry Mitchell's website is here.

From Phoenix's channel 15.

Another Veterans' Group Grades Harry Mitchell - A+, of course

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund has given out its grades to Congress in its 2010 Congressional Report Card.

The grades for the AZ delegation can be found here.

Summary:

Harry Mitchell - A+ (whooo hoooo!)

Ann Kirkpatrick - A+

Ed Pastor - A

Gabrielle Giffords - B

Raul Grijalva - C

Jon Kyl - D

John McCain - D

Trent Franks - D

Jeff Flake - F

John Shaddegg - F


The interesting part?  The lowest-graded Democrat in Arizona, Raul Grijalva, still out-paced the highest-graded Republicans from our state, Franks, McCain, and Kyl.

Apparently "anti-war" isn't synonymous with "anti-warrior" and "pro-war" isn't synonymous with "pro-warrior."

No matter how much the Rs protest to the contrary.

Letter to the editor regarding Harry Mitchell

Recently, but more than a week ago, I submitted a letter to the editor to the Arizona Republic.  It was considered for publication, but apparently was passed over.

No problem.  There are other outlets for my insightful (yet humble) observations.  :)

The letter as submitted -

Dear Editor,

I urge everyone in the 5th Congressional District to support one of Arizona's longtime public servants, Congressman Harry Mitchell.


People, including me, may not agree with every single vote that he casts in Congress, but I've never disagreed with the motivation behind those votes - looking out for the best interests of his constituents.

Whether it is fighting for America's (and Arizona's) veterans, striving for fiscal responsibility in Washington, or working to strengthen our schools, Mitchell has always put his constituents first, and deserves our renewed support.

While his detractors like to ridicule him for "having his heart in the right place," they should consider the idea that in an ideal world, every elected official should have their hearts in the right place..

Voters can send a message by voting to reelect Harry Mitchell.

CD5 is one of the places that still values public service instead of vilifying it.

Volunteer to help Harry keep helping us.

More fun with campaign signs...

An indicator of the status of the Schweikert campaign, this sign has been in upside down for weeks.  In fact, it was the sign that I was going to snap a pic of when I sprained my ankle over a week ago.

The best part is that the Schweikert campaign had the time to put up one of their juvenile insult signs (damaged by last week's storms), next to a Mitchell sign at the same location but they didn't have the time to correct one of their own while they were there..