We lost two icons, Bill Richardson and Jimmy Buffet

One was big in the world of politics, one was big in the world of pop music, and this may be a bit of a surprise coming from a political guy, but the pop music denizen may be the bigger loss.

Not that the politics guy had an inconsiderable influence.

Pic courtesy NBCNews

First up: the guy from the political world, Bill Richardson.  A former member of Congress, a former governor of New Mexico, a former ambassador, and a former a lot of things.

When he ran for president in 2008, I nearly voted for him (he withdrew from the race well before the AZ primary).  After baby Bush and his administration, I thought the White House needed breadth of competence.

He may have bowed out of the race, but with the eventual winner, things turned out well for the country.

Very well, actually. 

He was 75.

Pic courtesy NPR

Singer Jimmy Buffet may have had a more noticeable impact on society at large, though.

He was best known for the song "Margaritaville", but, as great as that one was, I was always more of a fan on "Come Monday", "Cheeseburger in Paradise", and  "Son of a Son of a Sailor".

He was 76.

My condolences go out to their families and friends.

Ballot time in Arizona: Presidential primary edition

Full disclosure time: I am on the Permanent Early Voting List and have already voted in Arizona's Presidential Preference Election, and I voted for Bernie Sanders for president.  Nothing about this post should be considered to be an endorsement...but if I was going to make one... :)


...A few thoughts as we approach the date of Arizona's presidential primary (Tuesday, March 22) -

- Everyone has their own "big issue" that they use as a litmus test when choosing which candidates to support.  Mine is "will she/he work in the best interest of all of her/his constituents, and not just her/his donors and supporters".  I can disagree with a candidate on an issue and still vote for that person, so long as I am convinced that their "guiding light" is the best interest of their constituents (example: Harry Mitchell would drive me up a wall with some of his votes in Congress, but I never doubted his respect, affection, and dedication to the people of Tempe or his district [when he held a "district" office, not a Tempe office]).

Of all of the candidates on both sides of the political aisle, I think that Bernie Sanders does the best job of meeting that criteria, which is why he won my vote.


- At this point, tt looks as if the horrific Donald Trump will be the nominee of the Republican Party, which should make life easier on the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that may be.  However horrific he may be as a candidate and as a human being though, his nomination doesn't guarantee a Democratic win.

Not even close.

One way for Democratic activists to enhance Trump's chances in the general election is if the supporters of the two main Democratic candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refuse to "bury the hatchet" after the nominee is selected.

There have been some hurt feelings on both sides as (alleged) supporters of one candidate spout things that are demeaning toward the supporters of the other candidate.

My advice to partisans of both candidates:

When someone you personally know and respect goes "below the belt" in criticisms of your favored candidate or his/her supporters, discuss (or argue :) ) the matter with them.

When someone you don't know or have never even heard of does the same thing, ignore them.


- Related to the above paragraph, please read the one above that one.  It serves as evidence that one can express support for a candidate without insulting another candidate or his/her supporters.

Note: Expressing support for one candidate does not in itself constitute an insult to another candidate.  If you feel that someone civilly expressing support for a candidate that you don't support to be an insult, stay away from politics.

Your sensibilities are far too tender.


- Supporters of some of the candidates have been touting their preferred candidate's "resume".  While the job of "President of the United States" is not an entry-level position (looking at you, Donald Trump), "resume" is not the deciding factor with most voters.

If it was, Barack Obama wouldn't have won in 2008; Bill Richardson (experience in Congress, as a cabinet secretary, state governor, ambassador to the UN, nominations for a couple of Nobel Peace Prizes, etc., in other words, "resume out the wazoo") would have.

New Mexico Legislature: Proof that not all western legislators are nuts

This actually came out late last week, but it's definitely worth worth a mention -

From Reuters -

New Mexico state lawmakers voted on Friday to repeal the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

The bill is HB 285. It passed the New Mexico House 40 -28 and it passed the NM Senate 24 - 18. It awaits the signature of Governor Bill Richardson, long a supporter of capital punishment.

How is it that the elected officials in a state that is very similar to AZ...just a few significant urban areas, lots of rural areas, large Native American population, a heavily Hispanic-influenced culture (both historically and present-day), a dry climate, a drier sense of humor, and more...how is it that a state legislature faced with many of the same issues as AZ's legislature can find the time to help move their state into modern society while ours offers up guns in restaurants?

BTW - in case you couldn't tell from the rest of the post, I oppose capital punishment. Our system of justice is good, but it is far from perfect. The death penalty is the one punishment in our society that cannot be undone if a mistake is made.

Anyway, kudos the the New Mexican state senators and representatives who voted for their HB 285. I hope that Governor Richardson sees fit to take his state out of the taxpayer-funded murder business.

Bill Richardson's statement on recent events

Governor Bill Richardson sent out an email with a statement on his withdrawal as the Obama Administration's designee as Secretary of Commerce.


The text of the email -



"For nearly three decades, I have been honored to serve my state and our nation in Congress, at the U.N., as Secretary of Energy and as governor. So when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call.

I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.

It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time.

I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.

Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.

Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.

So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future.

I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country.
I've included President-elect Obama's statement in response to my own:

Statement of the President-elect:

It's with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce.

He is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office.

It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time.

Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.

Thank you for your past and continued support.

I look forward to putting this matter to rest and in the meantime I am preparing for the upcoming New Mexico legislative session.





All my best wishes,









"


Later!

Governor Bill Richardson withdraws as Commerce Secretary-designate

From the Washington Post -

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has withdrawn his name from consideration as commerce secretary for President-elect Barack Obama, citing an ongoing investigation about business dealings in his state.

This is unfortunate (I am a big fan of Richardson's), but it's the right thing to do. Given the ongoing issues with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, even though that is totally out of the control of Barack Obama or his transition team, it means that any appointments by the president-elect (or other things that they *can* control) need to be beyond reproach.

I'm sure that once he is cleared in this matter, Governor Richardson's stellar career of public service will continue unabated, with a move into the Cabinet or a significant ambassadorship likely (God knows that the the U.S. could use a diplomat of his stature in the Middle East).

While this is a bit of a hiccup, Obama and his team can be comforted by the knowledge that they're going to head into their era with one of the best coming out of the bullpen.

The Southwest looks to be well-represented in the Obama cabinet

First came the news that AZ's own Governor Janet Napolitano has been tabbed to take over the Department of Homeland Security.

Then came the strong rumors that Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) will be selected as Secretary of the Interior.

Now today comes the news that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has been tapped to be Secretary of Commerce.

While all of those selections (if they become official) are good ones, both for the desert Southwest and for the country as a whole, the most significant for the Southwest is that of longtime environmental and progressive activist Grijalva, not that of the higher-profile Napolitano or Richardson. Grijalva has long been involved with southwestern and national environmental issues, serving as a member of the House's Committee on Natural Resources and chairing that committee's National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee. In short, he brings the right disposition and experience to the job once held by prominent Arizonans Bruce Babbitt (1993 - 2001) and Stewart Udall (1961 - 1969).

Over 50% of Arizona's land area is under federal control, as is Utah's, over 40% of New Mexico is federal land and over 80% of Nevada is. Colorado is slacking - a little over 30% of it is under federal jurisdiction.

Note: not all of the land areas mentioned above are under Interior's jurisdiction, such as that which is under military control. Still, a huge percentage of the Four Corners states and Nevada are federally-controlled.

In other words, there's definitely a need for a native of the southwest to be overseeing the Department of the Interior.

While both are longtime westerners and have served ably as governors of southwestern states, Napolitano and Richardson bring the sort of experience and temperment that lends itself to more generalization. In fact, both were rumored to have been considered for other posts before the proposed ones were settled on - Napolitano for Attorney General or White House Counsel and Richardson for Secretary of State (and with all due respect to Senator Clinton, Bill Richardson has way more qualifications for the job.)


On to consideration of more mundane ramifications...

Of the three seats, the Democratic Party is most likely to lose the AZ governorship. Not only would a Republican, Jan Brewer, ascend to the office upon Napolitano's move to D.C, but the Republicans have a registration advantage in AZ. That advantage will have to be overcome by the eventual Democratic nominee (Terry Goddard???) in 2010.

However, in AZCD7, the Democrats have an almost 2-1 registration advantage, so unless there's a brutal Democratic primary battle as part of a possible special election and the eventual winner is weakened significantly, the Dems will hold on to that seat.

In New Mexico, there are over 200,000 more registered Dems than Reps, so the Democratic Party *should* keep the NM governor's office. I say "*should*" because western Democrats are rather independent, which is why New Mexico is considered a battleground state during presidential elections.

Later...

Quotes from the Democratic Convention

Most of these are from the "as prepared for delivery" press releases (my note-taking ability couldn't keep up; hence, for most of the speakers, I didn't even try...); some are from different meetings and forums...

"With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States." - Senator Barack Obama during his acceptance speech...

"All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do — that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. " - Michelle Obama...

"We need a president who puts the Barney Smiths before the Smith Barneys." - Barney Smith, former Republican and former RCA worker whose job was sent overseas...

"This is our time. This is our moment to change the course of history." - Mark Udall, Colorado Congressman and candidate for U.S. Senate...

"For every American who is trying to do the right thing, for all those people in government who are honoring their pledge to uphold the law and honor the Constitution, no longer will you hear the eight most dreaded words in the English language: "The Vice President's office is on the phone." " - Senator and Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden...

"If every criminal has the right to see a lawyer, every family should have the right to see a doctor." - John Melcher, former U.S. Senator from Montana, at a meeting of the Senior Caucus (This was a major talking point among the health care reform crowd; I heard it from other speakers at various meetings, but Melcher was the first I heard, so he gets credit. )

"Barack Obama had the good judgment to know that we should not risk the lives of our brave soldiers in the wrong war." - Illinois Senator Richard Durbin...

"That's a thousand dollar hat on a 10-cent head." - Populist and Texan Jim Hightower to the Rural Caucus, discussing pictures of George W. Bush wearing a cowboy hat while clearing brush on his Texas ranch, the one that has not cattle.

"Card laid, card played - keep your word." - Representative Mike Honda (D-CA), speaking at the Veterans' Caucus about the plight of Filipino WW2 veterans who were screwed out of their benefits by Congress immediately after the war (but it's a valid sentiment in other areas, too)...

"Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time?" - Senator Barack Obama...

"These are extraordinary times. This is an extraordinary election. The American people are ready. I'm ready. Barack is ready. This is his time. This is our time. This is America's time." - Senator Joe Biden...

"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it." - Senator Barack Obama...

"We honor McCain's service; we ask him to honor ours." - Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers, speaking at the Veterans' Caucus...

"McCain has been AWOL on Veterans' issues." - Colonel Richard Klass, USAF (Ret.)

"...we don't need four more years . . . of the last eight years." - Senator Hillary Clinton...

"In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own." - Senator Barack Obama, referring to the Republicans' 'trickle-down' theory of economics [which I call 'tinkle-down' economics]...

"Obama will be a great president, but he can't do this alone. He needs your help." - Congressman John Dingell...

"All the governors need a partner in the White House, and Barack Obama will be that partner." - Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio...

"I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. - Senator Barack Obama...

"No way. No how. No McCain." - Senator Hillary Clinton...

"It was the classiest thing that I've heard in 32 years of coming to these conventions." - DNC Chairman Howard Dean, referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech on convention Tuesday.

"McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but we will pay for his flip flops." - New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson...

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families." - Senator Barack Obama...

"Barack Obama will lead us away from division and fear of the last eight years back to unity and hope. If, like me, you still believe America must always be a place called Hope, then join Hillary, Chelsea and me in making Senator Barack Obama the next President of the United States." - former President Bill Clinton...

"The forces of the status quo are desperately afraid of the change that Barack Obama represents." - Al Gore, former Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and Oscar winner...

"Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President." - Senator Hillary Clinton...

"Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America." - Senator Barack Obama...

Wow.

That's all I have to say tonight, but here are a few pics (sorry about the quality, but A) I'm not a photographer, and 2) I was in the nosebleeds, as in "any higher and you have to notify Denver Air Traffic Control :) ...

Bill Richardson (he kicked ass)

Al Gore (Did pretty well himself)

And some guy who also had a pretty good night, too. :)

A report and more pics tomorrow from the trip home (a Motel 6 in Gallup to be precise)....

Breaking - Richardson Endorses Obama

From an email to his supporters (apparently, Governor Richardson was as impressed by Senator Obama's speech on race in America as I, and millions of others, was) -

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them. We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

AP coverage of the endorsement here.

CNN coverage here.

Short Attention Span Musing - campaigns edition

...Well, in a shock to the MSM, but not to anyone else, both parties' races for the Presidential nomination are wide open right now. Pundits are trying to spin Tuesday's results from New Hampshire as a "major" Clinton victory and a serious blow to Obama's White House aspirations.

Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.

Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.

Of course, he won in NH in 2000.

In other words - it's not over.

...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.

He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.

His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.

Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.


...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.


...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.

In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.

There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.

If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.

It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.

Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.

I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.

Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.


...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.

Our loss.

Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.


...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.

She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.

Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.


CD5 race news -

...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.

Her stated reason for waiting?

Bitter Smith, the Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Television Communications Association, says that her decision depends on what happens on February 5 – the day Arizonans go to the polls to participate in the state’s presidential primary. She said that a strong Republican turnout would be encouraging.

Bitter Smith also said she was looking for a “strong Republican” to head up the Party ticket in November.

Not really news that; rumors about a possible run have been swirling for months. What is interesting is the rest of the quote from the article -

When asked which candidate she preferred, she laughed. “McCain, Rudy (Giuliani), Romney,” she said.

Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.

Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.


...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.

He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.

Later!

I know that Ron Paul is a "non-traditional" candidate...

...but his supporters have to learn that sometimes things become "traditional" because they work...

On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.

The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.

But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.

It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.

They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.

I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.

If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.

Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).

Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.

And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -

After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.

In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.

Just something to think about...

Where do they go from here?

My quick take on the Iowa caucus results -

Democratic side...

Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.

Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)

Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.

Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.

Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.

If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.

Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.

Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.


Republican side...

Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.

Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.

And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.

Lots more.

Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.

McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.

Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.

Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?

Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.

Later!

Why requiring that people buy health insurance is the wrong approach

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney offer similar plans to address health care in America. Both plans mandate that people purchase health insurance.

Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...


From AP via Businessweek -

No health care? Higher fines in Mass.

BOSTON

The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.

When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.

To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.

Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."

Hillary Clinton's health plan here.

Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")

Other candidates:

Edwards' plan

Giuliani's plan

Richardson's plan

McCain's plan

Obama's plan

Huckabee's plan

Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)

Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)

Biden's plan

Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.

Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.

One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?

They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.

If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?

Short Attention Span Musing

...Is state Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) trying to move up? Right now, most of his blog coverage is limited to "That's our Jack! Isn't he a nut?" posts, but a bill that he has proposed for the looming session of the Arizona lege may support moving him from the "loon" category of coverage into the "follow the money" category.

If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."

In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.

When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.

So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.

That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.

It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.

Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.

End edit.


...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?

George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)

He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.

The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.

From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -

"My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple," Lautenberg said in a statement.

Consider this -

- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.

- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.

- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.

Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.

Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?

The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.

I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.

However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.

Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?

Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.


...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.

So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?

Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?

Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?

Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?


The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)

Later!

Democratic Ballot for AZ's Presidential Preference Primary

Edit to add - OK, so I was a little bored on Christmas Day, and decided to do a little research on the *ahem* 'lesser-known' candidates on the ballot. Some of the names were all but useless as search parameters and I couldn't find any information that was clearly pertinent to the presidential candidates. Others, however, were useful. A number of the candidates are participants in the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies' Project White House. One candidate has even announced that he is on the presidential primary ballot by mistake; he's actually running in CD6 against Jeff Flake (or Russell Pearce, if Pearce can actually pull of the political upset of the century.) Information at the links; however, given that few of the candidates have actual campaign websites, some of the info could be inaccurate.

End edit.

DSW at Sonoran Alliance put up a post detailing the Republican ballot; here's the listing of the Democratic one.

The list of candidates on the ballot for Arizona's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary taking place February 5, 2008 (courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website) (major candidates in bold; Arizona-based candidates noted with an 'AZ') -

WHITEHOUSE, SANDY (AZ) - president of the Santa Rita Foothills Community Association.

RICHARDSON, BILL

LYNCH, FRANK

KRUEGER, KARL - truck driver/radio personality

OBAMA, BARACK

EDWARDS, JOHN

BOLLANDER, PETER "SIMON" (AZ)

MONTELL, LELAND (AZ) - real estate agent

SEE, CHUCK (AZ) - ran for President as a Republican in 2000

HUBBARD, LIBBY (AZ) - artist

GEST, LOTI (AZ) - counselor at an addiction recovery center

DALEY, ORION - author

CAMPBELL, WILLIAM (AZ) - this is a lousy name for web searches.

TANNER, PHILIP (AZ)

KUCINICH, DENNIS J.

CLINTON, HILLARY

DOBSON, EDWARD (AZ)

HAYMER, TISH (AZ) - The Abbess of Costello?

LEE, RICH - another name provides lousy internet search terms

OATMAN, MICHAEL (AZ) - IT Guru

GRAVEL, MIKE

VITULLO, EVELYN L. (AZ) - a Democratic candidate for President in 2004

DODD, CHRISTOPHER J.

GRAYSON, RICHARD (AZ)


Notes:

The biggest surprise? No Joe Biden on the ballot.

Worst draw for a 'top-tier' candidate? Hillary Clinton; 15 candidates, including Richardson, Obama, and Edwards are listed higher on the ballot.

Is there something in Tucson's water? Of the 17 'anybody can run for President' candidates, 12 list a Tucson address. Maybe somebody should tell them that they are more likely to win a Powerball jackpot than the President's job.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing - Burning Questions Edition

...You know, I'm not minimizing the significance of the Mitchell (former U.S. Senator George, not current U.S. Rep. Harry :)) ) report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, but in light of the country's ongoing budget deficit, economic decline, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and more, why is every politician under the sun jumping in on this?

Congresscritters and elected officials from Maine to California are weighing in, whether it's Reps. Waxman and Davis inviting Bud Selig and Donald Fehr, respectively the MLB commissioner and players' union chief, to appear before a Congressional hearing looking into baseball's steroid use to George Bush's spouting off about the possible effect on "America's young."

- - - Is it too much to ask the people that were elected to lead the country actually focus on their jobs?


...The Senate overwhelmingly passed HR6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 *after* the Senate Democrats surrendered to a filibuster threat from Senate Republicans and a veto threat from George Bush and stripped out aspects that would have ended some tax breaks for Big Oil and compelled the development and use of renewable energy sources.

- - - I know that the Democratic leadership in both chambers is used to surrendering by now, but maybe they should have realized that this one would have been the perfect opportunity to call the Republicans' bluff?

At a time when gas is over $3.00 per gallon and oil company profits are at record levels, when the northeastern part of the country is digging out from one winter storm with another nor'easter bearing down, all the while dealing with home heating oil prices that have risen more than 250% since George W. Bush took office, pictures of Republican Senators going to the mat, not for insuring sick kids or even funding government operations, but for *oil companies,* would be the perfect cover photos on Christmas cards sent to their constituents.

The Republican senators could consider it a Christmas gift from the DSCC. :))


...Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff thinks that Congressional oversight of his agency has "run amok" and wants less Congressional involvement in operations there.

- - - Does Secretary Chertoff really think that he's going to get more than $40 billion dollars and the authority to peer into the lives of American citizens without someone peering over his shoulder?


...The Associated Press ran a piece today about Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico. The thrust of the piece was a rhetorical question, wondering if Governor Richardson was "too real" to win the nomination and the presidency.

The point of the question is that while Governor Richardson has become a little more polished as the campaign has progressed, he is considered something of an "unmade bed" - an openly, enthusiastically, friendly man who can be described at "the ultimate diplomat who can be incredibly undiplomatic."

- - - In this era of candidates who don't wake up in the morning without convening a focus group to decide if they should have milk or cream in their coffee, isn't it time for a candidate who is just a normal guy with a normal personality?

[OK, OK - a highly intelligent, well educated, vastly experienced, and supremely qualified "normal guy." :)) ]

Maybe America is ready for a candidate who hasn't been prepped, primped, made-up, and blow-dried to within an inch of their human-ness. I know that I am.

The article was actually a pretty good one, with a fair career bio of the Governor. It's worth a read.

A couple of quick notes -

Full disclosure time - I'm a Richardson supporter (like that wasn't obvious :) ).

Also, for a brief period, the AP article was published, in of all places, foxnews.com. Somebody over at Fox must have realized they published an article that was complimentary of a Democrat, though, and took it down, because I can no longer find it on the Fox site.


...Most people (at least, most of the active Democrats that I've spoken to) believe that Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has his eye on higher office, such as Arizona Attorney General or Governor.

In light of his recent policy change allowing Phoenix police officers to engage in the enforcement of immigration laws (and past things, like endorsing Republican Jim "we don't need no steenkin' Democrats" Weiers for State Rep), the question is this -

- - - Will Gordon be running as a Democrat or a Republican?

Later!

A quick post about the presidential campaigns

I realized this weekend that while many of my posts have concerned presidential campaign events, few, if any, have concerned the presidential campaigns themselves.

Time to correct that oversight. :)

Think of this as "Short Attention Span Musing - Campaigns Edition."

Some of these topics are few weeks old, but they're still worth covering.

Note - while I haven't firmly decided who I'm voting for in February's primary, I am strongly leaning toward Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (and former Congressman, ambassador, Cabinet secretary, and multiple-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize). A more in-depth post on that topic will be forthcoming shortly.


...Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been sniping at each other over who is the most qualified in the area of foreign affairs.

See the above summary of Bill Richardson's resume to understand why that discussion is so laughable.


...The Clinton campaign has been playing the "oh...the big, bad, boys are ganging up on poor, little ol' me" card as the primaries draw near and the trailing candidates sharpen their criticisms of the leader of the pack.

A leader of the pack named "Hillary Clinton."

To anyone who buys into the "ganging up" card - criticizing the leader in a campaign race is the job of those chasing that leader. Casting that as a the "boy's club" picking on a woman who's encroaching on territory that heretofore was strictly the domain of the "boy's club" is a shamelessly cynical ploy.

And the fact that the tactic probably helped doesn't mitigate that shamelessness..


...A couple of weeks ago, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote a column stating that the Clinton campaign has some damaging information about Barack Obama. The rancor between the two campaigns immediately escalated.

How can the presumably experienced professional operatives of both campaigns place any stock in the scribblings of a Bush/Cheney shill like Darth Novak? This is a guy who publicly outed CIA agent Valerie Plame as retaliation against her husband for criticizing the President.

A little partisan mudslinging is nothing for someone who's soulless enough to do that.


...My information is a couple of weeks old, so things may have changed for the better, but Clinton's Arizona campaign seems to be disorganized at best and practically nonexistent at worst. Reports from both highly involved activists and casual, first-time volunteers are consistent - phone calls and emails aren't returned, information requests go unanswered (I can speak to that one directly :) ), and other signs of a campaign in disarray.

I hope that the Clinton campaign hasn't written off AZ - she doesn't have AZ's primary locked up yet, and if she wins the nomination, she'll need every electoral vote she can get in the general.

And if John McCain isn't at the top of the Republican ticket (something that is looking more likely every day), AZ's 10 electoral votes will be in play.

The Obama, Richardson, and Kucinich campaigns have active organizations in AZ that are not only trying to help their candidates win the nomination but are laying the groundwork for the general election.

The other campaigns, including Sen. Clinton's, should take note of that.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing...

edited to add a link below...

Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...

...and reminders of a couple of events...

...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.

...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.

Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.


Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )

...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.

From boston.com -

Romney passes on high-stakes baseball bet

{snip}

Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo wants to put something important on the line -- his candidacy. His campaign called ABC News to issue this challenge: The Colorado congressman will drop out of the race if the Rockies lose the World Series -- if rival Mitt Romney agrees to pack it in if the Red Sox lose.

As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.

Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)

...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.

The title -

Mitt Romney: The Huckster

He May Have Made $250 Million as a Venture Capitalist, but the Republican Candidate Is Trying to Sell a Party that's Gone Bankrupt

...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.

From AP via Yahoo! News -

Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

"Bombardment of some kind"??

Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.


...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.

From AP via Yahoo! News -

Bush visits California wildfire victims

{snip}

In San Diego's hard-hit community of Rancho Bernardo, Bush stepped through rubble on a street of Mediterranean-style homes, where houses that remained unscathed were interspersed with what amounted to mere shells of the American dream. He stood with Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat near where a single spiral staircase rested amid rubble that used to be their home and where their burnt-out car had melted into the scorched earth.

"Those of us who are here in government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats," the president said, his arm draped around Mrs. Jeffcoat. Holding her small brown dog on a leash, she fought back tears and Bush kissed her on the head.

Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.

Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))

...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.

End edit...

Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.


...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'

I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.

Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.

John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.

Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.

From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -

Brain-Numbing Dipshittery During the SCHIP Debate

...here is video of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the House floor earlier today, explaining why he must cast a vote against SCHIP, with a giant picture of a fetus behind him. It's like someone bet this douchebag money that he couldn't hit every square on an anti-choice Bingo card, and he said, "Oh yeah? Watch me."

As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.

End edit.

Later!

Obama and Richardson events in the valley

...On Friday, October 19 (i.e.- this Friday!), Senator Barack Obama will appear at ASU for a free Rally for Change.

Event details -

Rally for Change in Arizona
Friday, October 19
Hayden Lawn, on ASU's Tempe Campus
Gates open at 10:00 a.m.

To RSVP, please visit: http://www.barackobama.com/arizonarally

After the rally, Senator Obama will appear at a fundraiser at the Wyndham Phoenix.

Obama's Arizona website here; the Obama campaign's HQ is at 22 E. Mitchell (directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)


...On Saturday, October 27, Governor Bill Richardson will appear in both Phoenix and Tucson.

The details of the Phoenix event -

A "Fajita Fundraiser" with Governor Bill Richardson
Saturday October 27th
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
IBEW Building
5808 North 7th Street
Phoenix AZ 85014

Enjoy great food, including chicken and beef fajitas, red chili burros, vegetarian chimichangas and all the trimmings provided by our friends at Mi Patio Restaurant (at 7th Avenue and Osborn); plates are $10 each and all proceeds go to the Richardson for President campaign.


If any of the other Democratic campaign want their eventsinfo posted, email me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.

Later!

Events Calendar - Presidential Campaign Edition

Obama Campaign -

Tuesday, October 9 - The Obama campaign is holding a 'Wine and Appetizers Fundraiser for Obama' at the Scottsdale Culinary Institute, 8100 E. Camelback, Scottsdale.

Time: 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Cost: $40 - $20 to SCI, $20 to the Obama campaign (though more is certainly welcome :)) )
RSVP here.

Saturday, October 13 - The Turn the Page in Iraq Canvass in Phoenix and Tempe

Time: 10:00 a.m.
Places:
Tempe Canvass, Kiwanis Park, 6111 South All-America Way, RSVP here;
Phoenix Canvass, Steele Indian School Park, 300 E Indian School Rd, RSVP here.

Friday, October 19 - Senator Barack Obama visits Arizona. Details available at the October 9th event; I'll post them here when available.


Richardson Campaign -

Friday - Sunday, October 12 to 14 - Richardson Campaign Adopt-A-State weekend in Nevada

Details/RSVP: Ray Glendening at the Richardson campaign


Kucinich campaign -

Saturday, October 20 - Fundraiser for Dennis Kucinich at the Peace Tree House in Tempe. Contact local coordinator Rick Romero at 602.515.9844 (cell) for details.


That's it for now; still waiting to hear back on information requests of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.