To be fair to our Foreclosure Dave though, it's not like he was alone.
On Wednesday, the new Republican majority in the U.S. House passed all sorts of new rules for the 112th Congress. Some of them are really interesting, but we'll save those for another day.
The highlight of the rules package was one that *didn't* make it into the package.
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) proposed a rule that would have required members of Congress to disclose whether or not they take advantage of the taxpayer-funded and government-run health care offered to members.
The proposal was defeated on a party-line vote, 191 - 238.
Huffington Post has a full report here.
Now, I could criticize all 238 Republicans who voted to defeat transparency, but they aren't the elected representatives of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.
David Schweikert is.
David Schweikert is the one, who on his website, stated "the liberal politicians in Washington continue to support government run healthcare that will effectively dismantle our healthcare system."
He's pledged to work for the repeal of health care reform and coverage for the average American...
Yet on the same day that he voted to conceal his and other members' acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance, he also voted to pass H. Res. 26, providing for next week's consideration of H.R. 2, the Republican scheme to repeal the health care reform and coverage for the average American.
So Schweikert is a *conservative* politician in Washington who supports "government run healthcare" for people who will "dismantle" healthcare for average Americans.
Something tells me that this won't be the last example of shameless hypocrisy coming from Schweikert.
Showing posts with label Schweikert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schweikert. Show all posts
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
David Schweikert, a Constitutional expansionist?
From the Phoenix Business Journal (quoted in its entirety because it is only two sentences) -
I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution specifying that right (and wasn't one of the R arguments against health care reform something about it not being in the Constitution?), but Schweikert seems to be well on his way to proving that 110,374 voters have already taken advantage of that Schweikert-granted "right".
New U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale/Tempe, was on CNN Monday night talking about health care.Check out this CNN video for more.
Schweikert toppled Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in November. Schweikert will be part of the GOP efforts to dismantle President Barack Obama's health plans. Schweikert made the argument on CNN against the individual mandate in the Obama plans saying Americans have the 'right to be dumb' and not have insurance even if they can afford it.
I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution specifying that right (and wasn't one of the R arguments against health care reform something about it not being in the Constitution?), but Schweikert seems to be well on his way to proving that 110,374 voters have already taken advantage of that Schweikert-granted "right".
Sunday, November 07, 2010
The AZ Republic is applying some fresh Chapstick and puckering up
The editorial board of the Arizona Republic is kissing up to the Republicans in AZ's delegation to Congress (I won't engage in unseemly speculation about which part of the Rs they are trying to kiss :) ).
The latest indication of this activity is the poorly written love letter masquerading as an "analysis" piece that the Rep published on Sunday.
The piece -
More "influence" in the House?
More federal projects for Arizona?
Riiiiiggghhhht...
Let's see:
Jeff Flake (CD6) has made a career out of taking an apparently principled stand against earmarks or any projects for his district (to be fair to Flake, it isn't just his district - like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, he hates *everything.* Unlike the fictional character Mikey however, he doesn't change in the face of reality), but he wins reelection every year in his R-heavy district because he is well-coiffed, smiles a lot, and he isn't an embarrassment (say, in the mold of J.D. Hayworth).
Trent Franks (CD2) actively works against highway money for his district. He will occasionally support a local project, but those usually involve the construction of jails or the purchase of some new technology for law enforcement. And even in that, he seems almost ashamed for doing something that might possibly help his constituents (even if it's less "helping his constituents" and more "helping to imprison his constituents"). In fact, the only thing he exhibits any enthusiasm around is his quest to destroy a woman's right to choose.
Newly-electeds Paul Gosar (CD1) and David Schweikert (CD5) were elected on tea party/pro-corporate platforms and seem unlikely to support any efforts to help Arizonans...unless those Arizonans have last names that can be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC". And have contributed to their campaigns.
The newly-elected Ben Quayle (CD3) may be the House member most likely to support projects for his district. He's got two years to establish his "representative" bona fides before running for reelection after the redistricting process changes his district. Still, given his daddy's (and his daddy's friends') heavy involvement in his campaign, he seems likely to favor projects that will help the companies of his donors, not his constituents.
As for AZ's contingent in the U.S. Senate, both Jon Kyl and John McCain have been in D.C. for decades, and for decades, they haven't worked for Arizona.
Kyl openly works for Big Business, protecting their interests to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of the average Arizonan.
McCain openly works for John McCain. Period.
The article is right about one thing, though.
The change in the partisan balance in Congress, and in Arizona's delegation to Congress, will almost certainly mean that the Resolution Copper land swap/swipe will go through. Of course, while that is sold as a benefit to Arizonans (in the form of mining jobs and tax revenue, while ignoring the multi-generational costs of a destroyed environment and watershed, and the savaging of ancestral Native lands held in "trust" by the federal government), the big beneficiary will be a large, multi-national corporation, Rio Tinto.
Rio Tinto (or its Resolution Copper subsidiary) has donated directly to the campaign committees, or to mining industry PACs that donated to the campaign committees, of almost every R member of AZ's delegation. I couldn't find any direct or indirect contributions to Gosar in the time allotted for this post.
The results of Tuesday's elections will almost certainly result in more influence in Congress for the Rs in Arizona's Congressional delegation. It almost certainly won't result in more influence in Congress for Arizona.
Certain people (and newspapers) in Arizona like to complain that AZ doesn't get its "fair share" of federal projects.
They may be correct.
So why do they continue to support candidates and electeds who are dedicated to opposing projects for Arizona?
The latest indication of this activity is the poorly written love letter masquerading as an "analysis" piece that the Rep published on Sunday.
The piece -
Vote gives Arizona more clout in Congress
The midterm elections will likely boost Arizona's clout in Congress, giving the state's new delegation greater power in crafting legislation and deciding how billions of federal taxpayer dollars will be spent.
Among the results, Arizona lawmakers say, could be increased highway funds for the state, more money for border security and even the passage of legislation to allow the construction of a huge, controversial new copper mine near Superior.
The growing influence of the state begins in the U.S. House. A new Republican majority among Arizona's House delegation ensures that Arizona's voice will be heard by the GOP House leaders who take control in January.
More "influence" in the House?
More federal projects for Arizona?
Riiiiiggghhhht...
Let's see:
Jeff Flake (CD6) has made a career out of taking an apparently principled stand against earmarks or any projects for his district (to be fair to Flake, it isn't just his district - like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, he hates *everything.* Unlike the fictional character Mikey however, he doesn't change in the face of reality), but he wins reelection every year in his R-heavy district because he is well-coiffed, smiles a lot, and he isn't an embarrassment (say, in the mold of J.D. Hayworth).
Trent Franks (CD2) actively works against highway money for his district. He will occasionally support a local project, but those usually involve the construction of jails or the purchase of some new technology for law enforcement. And even in that, he seems almost ashamed for doing something that might possibly help his constituents (even if it's less "helping his constituents" and more "helping to imprison his constituents"). In fact, the only thing he exhibits any enthusiasm around is his quest to destroy a woman's right to choose.
Newly-electeds Paul Gosar (CD1) and David Schweikert (CD5) were elected on tea party/pro-corporate platforms and seem unlikely to support any efforts to help Arizonans...unless those Arizonans have last names that can be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC". And have contributed to their campaigns.
The newly-elected Ben Quayle (CD3) may be the House member most likely to support projects for his district. He's got two years to establish his "representative" bona fides before running for reelection after the redistricting process changes his district. Still, given his daddy's (and his daddy's friends') heavy involvement in his campaign, he seems likely to favor projects that will help the companies of his donors, not his constituents.
As for AZ's contingent in the U.S. Senate, both Jon Kyl and John McCain have been in D.C. for decades, and for decades, they haven't worked for Arizona.
Kyl openly works for Big Business, protecting their interests to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of the average Arizonan.
McCain openly works for John McCain. Period.
The article is right about one thing, though.
The change in the partisan balance in Congress, and in Arizona's delegation to Congress, will almost certainly mean that the Resolution Copper land swap/swipe will go through. Of course, while that is sold as a benefit to Arizonans (in the form of mining jobs and tax revenue, while ignoring the multi-generational costs of a destroyed environment and watershed, and the savaging of ancestral Native lands held in "trust" by the federal government), the big beneficiary will be a large, multi-national corporation, Rio Tinto.
Rio Tinto (or its Resolution Copper subsidiary) has donated directly to the campaign committees, or to mining industry PACs that donated to the campaign committees, of almost every R member of AZ's delegation. I couldn't find any direct or indirect contributions to Gosar in the time allotted for this post.
The results of Tuesday's elections will almost certainly result in more influence in Congress for the Rs in Arizona's Congressional delegation. It almost certainly won't result in more influence in Congress for Arizona.
Certain people (and newspapers) in Arizona like to complain that AZ doesn't get its "fair share" of federal projects.
They may be correct.
So why do they continue to support candidates and electeds who are dedicated to opposing projects for Arizona?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
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 -
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 -
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...
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...
Monday, October 25, 2010
Latest adventures of Schweikert and the voter
This is a parody of David Schweikert and the tea party platform (Obama/Pelosi BAD! Corporate tax cuts GOOD!)
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) -
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.
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.
Friday, October 22, 2010
What is it with Arizona and its treasurers?
It seems that a certain segment of Arizona's politicians don't seem to understand that there is a difference between "representing" Arizonans, and "preying" on Arizonans...
Exhibit A: Former State Treasurer David Petersen. A former state legislator who resigned in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after an investigation into his improper use of public monies to fund his private business activities (ironically, the business was as a "character education" provider).
Exhibit B: Current and soon-to-be former State Treasurer Dean Martin. A former state legislator who should (but won't) resign in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after proudly proclaiming on a national radio program his status as a vulture investor who is profiting from the scandal-plagued foreclosure crisis that is wracking families across Arizona and the country.
Exhibit C: Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert. A former state legislator who has been outed as a predatory vulture foreclosure investor, like Martin above. He's been at it longer than Martin, and so is more accomplished at it - there have been illegal evictions (one served on a 12-year-old child, according to a court filing) and citations and fines for letting the properties he has acquired fall into disrepair, scarring the surrounding neighborhoods.
So let's see - they've got legislative experience in common, they've all been publicly-elected treasurers, and they aren't overly encumbered by ethics in their financial dealings.
What else could PeteRsen, MaRtin, and SchweikeRt have in common? I wondeRRRRR...
Anyway, while he has never been a legislator, Doug Ducey, R candidate for Arizona State Treasurer, is arguably already more accomplished at predatory and corrupt financial dealings than any of the others.
May he never get the chance to add "publicly-elected treasurer" to the list of things that he has in common with Schweikert, Martin, and Petersen, and may Schweikert not get the chance to take his brand of vulturism to D.C.
We need more public servants in public office, not more predators using public office for their private gain.
Vote for Andrei Cherny and Harry Mitchell.
Exhibit A: Former State Treasurer David Petersen. A former state legislator who resigned in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after an investigation into his improper use of public monies to fund his private business activities (ironically, the business was as a "character education" provider).
Exhibit B: Current and soon-to-be former State Treasurer Dean Martin. A former state legislator who should (but won't) resign in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after proudly proclaiming on a national radio program his status as a vulture investor who is profiting from the scandal-plagued foreclosure crisis that is wracking families across Arizona and the country.
Exhibit C: Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert. A former state legislator who has been outed as a predatory vulture foreclosure investor, like Martin above. He's been at it longer than Martin, and so is more accomplished at it - there have been illegal evictions (one served on a 12-year-old child, according to a court filing) and citations and fines for letting the properties he has acquired fall into disrepair, scarring the surrounding neighborhoods.
So let's see - they've got legislative experience in common, they've all been publicly-elected treasurers, and they aren't overly encumbered by ethics in their financial dealings.
What else could PeteRsen, MaRtin, and SchweikeRt have in common? I wondeRRRRR...
Anyway, while he has never been a legislator, Doug Ducey, R candidate for Arizona State Treasurer, is arguably already more accomplished at predatory and corrupt financial dealings than any of the others.
May he never get the chance to add "publicly-elected treasurer" to the list of things that he has in common with Schweikert, Martin, and Petersen, and may Schweikert not get the chance to take his brand of vulturism to D.C.
We need more public servants in public office, not more predators using public office for their private gain.
Vote for Andrei Cherny and Harry Mitchell.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Got some good news, got some bad news
OK, for some it's "bad news, good news"...
...Good news for the Schweikert campaign - this is his third campaign for Congress, and Jackass 3D was #1 at the box office this weekend. Sequels had some strength this weekend.
...Bad news for the Schweikert campaign - the election wasn't this weekend.
...Bad news for the Ken Bennett campaign - setting up an office in the basement of a lobbyist's office doesn't look good for a candidate for an office that is supposed to be all about integrity.
...Good news for Bennett - He's already set up his desk for his post-election job.
...Bad news for Ben "Tater Tot" Quayle in CD3 - a new poll shows him *behind* Democrat Jon Hulburd in the Republican-leaning district.
...Good news for Quayle - if he goes on to lose the race (and since his "unfavorables" are above 50%, that's a strong possibility), he should remember that the son of another famous politician lost his first campaign, a campaign for Congress. When George H.W. Bush tried to buy a seat in Congress for his son George W., the future "worst president ever" failed miserably to win what should have been a "safe" seat for any credible R candidate.
...Of course, that good news for Quayle isn't good news for the rest of us.
...Good news for the Brewer campaign - she's found a way to move attention away from concerns about her health and her ability to serve a full term in the Governor's office..
...Bad news for the Brewer campaign - that way involves irritating voters by hiding from them, decreasing the chance that after the election, she will have the opportunity to serve a full term.
Pic courtesy the Terry Goddard for Governor Facebook page...
At least she was consistent all day - she blew off senior voters during the day, and educators and students during the evening.
...Good news for the Schweikert campaign - this is his third campaign for Congress, and Jackass 3D was #1 at the box office this weekend. Sequels had some strength this weekend.
...Bad news for the Schweikert campaign - the election wasn't this weekend.
...Bad news for the Ken Bennett campaign - setting up an office in the basement of a lobbyist's office doesn't look good for a candidate for an office that is supposed to be all about integrity.
...Good news for Bennett - He's already set up his desk for his post-election job.
...Bad news for Ben "Tater Tot" Quayle in CD3 - a new poll shows him *behind* Democrat Jon Hulburd in the Republican-leaning district.
...Good news for Quayle - if he goes on to lose the race (and since his "unfavorables" are above 50%, that's a strong possibility), he should remember that the son of another famous politician lost his first campaign, a campaign for Congress. When George H.W. Bush tried to buy a seat in Congress for his son George W., the future "worst president ever" failed miserably to win what should have been a "safe" seat for any credible R candidate.
...Of course, that good news for Quayle isn't good news for the rest of us.
...Good news for the Brewer campaign - she's found a way to move attention away from concerns about her health and her ability to serve a full term in the Governor's office..
...Bad news for the Brewer campaign - that way involves irritating voters by hiding from them, decreasing the chance that after the election, she will have the opportunity to serve a full term.
Pic courtesy the Terry Goddard for Governor Facebook page...
At least she was consistent all day - she blew off senior voters during the day, and educators and students during the evening.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
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..
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..
Monday, October 11, 2010
Mitchell lead widening in CD5
From the DCCC (link added) -
Volunteer to help Arizona. Volunteer to help elect Democrats.
Mitchell Leads Schweikert by 7 in New AZ-05 Poll
A new Benenson Strategy Group poll shows Representative Harry Mitchell leading Republican challenger David Schweikert by 7 percent. Mitchell leads Schweikert 46 percent to 39 percent. Conducted October 5-7, the poll surveyed 400 likely voters and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.This news, on top of the news that Terry Goddard has closed to within 3 percentage points (among all voters) of Jan Brewer in a recent poll, drives home the point that while Democrats in AZ have made strides, getting out the vote will be vital for the next 3 weeks.
Volunteer to help Arizona. Volunteer to help elect Democrats.
Schweikert: nothing else is working, so it's time to lie
In his never-ending quest to gain a seat in Congress, Republican David Schweikert has gotten desperate -
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The tone-deafness of the Schweikert campaign continues: Palin supports Schweikert
And while some may take the following post as an argument that Schweikert shouldn't accept Palin's support, let me be clear - I think that they're a matched set.
Just not in a good way. :)
From the Phoenix Business Journal -
- She quit partway through her only term as governor of Alaska in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a public speaker and would-be Republican king- (or queen-)maker; Schweikert quit partway through his only term as Maricopa County Treasurer in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a Club for Growth-financed candidate for Congress.
- Her partial term as governor was one beset by scandals and ethics complaints; Schweikert's partial term as treasurer was characterized by professionalism and ethics issues, too.
- Her investments include (or perhaps "included", some sources indicate that she divested from them - after people noticed and started asking her about them) making money off of the misery in the Sudan; Schweikert makes money off of the misery of Valley homeowners who are underwater with their mortgages.
To sum up:
Palin and Schweikert are more focused on their personal careers and enrichment than on public service.
Palin and Schweikert go through life relatively free of the burdens of professionalism and integrity.
And Palin and Schweikert are ruthless in their acquisition of personal wealth.
Yup. They're perfect for each other.
Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress.
Later...
Just not in a good way. :)
From the Phoenix Business Journal -
Palin steps up campaign against Giffords, Kirkpatrick, MitchellSarah Palin may actually be one of the national Republican/tea party figures best-suited to help Schweikert's campaign -
Sarah Palin is picking up her online and fundraising efforts on behalf of three Republicans looking to unseat incumbent Arizona Democrats in November.
Palin is urging her supporters to get behind David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and Jesse Kelly in their bids against U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell of Tempe, Ann Kirkpatrick of Flagstaff and Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson.
Palin has targeted 20 races nationwide where she wants to help Republican challengers.
- She quit partway through her only term as governor of Alaska in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a public speaker and would-be Republican king- (or queen-)maker; Schweikert quit partway through his only term as Maricopa County Treasurer in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a Club for Growth-financed candidate for Congress.
- Her partial term as governor was one beset by scandals and ethics complaints; Schweikert's partial term as treasurer was characterized by professionalism and ethics issues, too.
- Her investments include (or perhaps "included", some sources indicate that she divested from them - after people noticed and started asking her about them) making money off of the misery in the Sudan; Schweikert makes money off of the misery of Valley homeowners who are underwater with their mortgages.
To sum up:
Palin and Schweikert are more focused on their personal careers and enrichment than on public service.
Palin and Schweikert go through life relatively free of the burdens of professionalism and integrity.
And Palin and Schweikert are ruthless in their acquisition of personal wealth.
Yup. They're perfect for each other.
Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress.
Later...
Schweikert campaign dusting off old tricks and gimmicks
Perhaps feeling the heat from the success of the recent video released by Harry Mitchell's campaign showing a number of Republicans from CD5 publicly expressing support for the Democratic incumbent, the Schweikert campaign has released its own video showing bipartisan supporters for their candidate.
...Well, make that bipartisan "supporter" (singular) because there is only one person in the video.
Anyway, when Mitchell first ran for Congress in 2006, a similar group of Republicans stepped forward to support the Tempe icon, and then-Congressman JD Hayworth responded with a single Democratic supporter, Craig Columbus, the 2002 D nominee in CD5. Columbus ran a high $ and ugly primary campaign while virtually rolling over in the general election. He has been characterized by one long-time Democrat in the district (not me - his candidacy was before my time as an active Democrat) as a "Republican in everything but name."
The "Democrat" recruited by the Schweikert campaign is similarly suspect. His name is Charlie Harrison, a noted gay rights activist and a self-proclaimed "very liberal" Democrat.
After that, however, his political activities and associations become a little murky.
In the 1990s, he was indicted for perjury as a result of his involvement in the infamous AZScam scandal (Phoenix New Times article here). Maybe not the best person for Schweikert, with questions surrounding his own ethics, to associate with.
He has contributed money to various political candidates and causes over the last decade. Some of the recipients of his largesse included long-time Latino activist Alfredo Gutierrez during his 2002 run for the D nomination for governor and a 2006 campaign against an anti-LGBT ballot question. He's also contributed to Republicans Trent Franks, Roberta Voss, and Sue Gerard. Voss and Gerard I can sort of understand - they're relatively moderate by the standards of the AZGOP. But Franks? Trent freakin' Franks???
More recently, he has been involved in a tiff with the U.S. Forest Service over some "recreational residences" in the Tonto National Forest near Carefree (AZ Republic background here; Phoenix New Times coverage here). Some of his anger with Mitchell may stem from Harrison's inability to persuade any of AZ's delegation to influence the Forest Service to ignore federal law and its own rules regarding the cabins. Harrison has also lobbied Franks and Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain to no avail on his pet issue.
However, he has targeted his public anger to the sole Democrat that he has contacted, Harry Mitchell, and has uttered nary a peep about the Republicans.
His association with Schweikert is curious, too.
Schweikert is running as a generic Republican/tea party candidate espousing a platform that is anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social safety net and worse, yet Harrison supports Schweikert while refering to himself as a "liberal."
And he calls on other "liberals" to vote against "liberal" Harry Mitchell.
Umm...yeah.
Two points here -
1. I am a liberal Democrat and proud of it. Anybody who has read this blog knows that. I am also a fan of Harry Mitchell and proud of it. Anybody who has read this blog also knows that. But I have to say, Harry Mitchell is no liberal.
He's a career public servant. Throughout his career, from his decades of teaching high school in Tempe to his terms in Congress representing CD5, he has focused on representing the best interests of the people he has served. I may not have always agreed with some of his votes and positions, but have always had absolutely no doubt that he tries to do the right thing.
He isn't a liberal, but he is a decent man. Instead of attacking Mitchell for that, Republicans (and liberal-on-one-issue folks like Harrison) should support him as an example of something that ALL elected officials should aspire to.
2. David Schweikert may be a decent man at heart (the jury is still out on that. Vulture investing will do that), but he's no liberal, or even a moderate who would be acceptable because he is a decent public servant (using public office to give a no-bid contract to a friend will do that).
Harrison may proclaim himself to be a "very liberal Democrat" but the inconsistencies in his campaign contributions (Trent freakin' Franks???) and his support for a candidate who will actively work against him and the causes that he supports over a single personal grievance only speak to Harrison's naivete (a description of him from the New Times' piece on his involvement with AZScam).
Personally, I think he is being petty, but since I haven't met Harrison, I'll stick with the description of people who have met him.
Later...
...Well, make that bipartisan "supporter" (singular) because there is only one person in the video.
Anyway, when Mitchell first ran for Congress in 2006, a similar group of Republicans stepped forward to support the Tempe icon, and then-Congressman JD Hayworth responded with a single Democratic supporter, Craig Columbus, the 2002 D nominee in CD5. Columbus ran a high $ and ugly primary campaign while virtually rolling over in the general election. He has been characterized by one long-time Democrat in the district (not me - his candidacy was before my time as an active Democrat) as a "Republican in everything but name."
The "Democrat" recruited by the Schweikert campaign is similarly suspect. His name is Charlie Harrison, a noted gay rights activist and a self-proclaimed "very liberal" Democrat.
After that, however, his political activities and associations become a little murky.
In the 1990s, he was indicted for perjury as a result of his involvement in the infamous AZScam scandal (Phoenix New Times article here). Maybe not the best person for Schweikert, with questions surrounding his own ethics, to associate with.
He has contributed money to various political candidates and causes over the last decade. Some of the recipients of his largesse included long-time Latino activist Alfredo Gutierrez during his 2002 run for the D nomination for governor and a 2006 campaign against an anti-LGBT ballot question. He's also contributed to Republicans Trent Franks, Roberta Voss, and Sue Gerard. Voss and Gerard I can sort of understand - they're relatively moderate by the standards of the AZGOP. But Franks? Trent freakin' Franks???
More recently, he has been involved in a tiff with the U.S. Forest Service over some "recreational residences" in the Tonto National Forest near Carefree (AZ Republic background here; Phoenix New Times coverage here). Some of his anger with Mitchell may stem from Harrison's inability to persuade any of AZ's delegation to influence the Forest Service to ignore federal law and its own rules regarding the cabins. Harrison has also lobbied Franks and Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain to no avail on his pet issue.
However, he has targeted his public anger to the sole Democrat that he has contacted, Harry Mitchell, and has uttered nary a peep about the Republicans.
His association with Schweikert is curious, too.
Schweikert is running as a generic Republican/tea party candidate espousing a platform that is anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social safety net and worse, yet Harrison supports Schweikert while refering to himself as a "liberal."
And he calls on other "liberals" to vote against "liberal" Harry Mitchell.
Umm...yeah.
Two points here -
1. I am a liberal Democrat and proud of it. Anybody who has read this blog knows that. I am also a fan of Harry Mitchell and proud of it. Anybody who has read this blog also knows that. But I have to say, Harry Mitchell is no liberal.
He's a career public servant. Throughout his career, from his decades of teaching high school in Tempe to his terms in Congress representing CD5, he has focused on representing the best interests of the people he has served. I may not have always agreed with some of his votes and positions, but have always had absolutely no doubt that he tries to do the right thing.
He isn't a liberal, but he is a decent man. Instead of attacking Mitchell for that, Republicans (and liberal-on-one-issue folks like Harrison) should support him as an example of something that ALL elected officials should aspire to.
2. David Schweikert may be a decent man at heart (the jury is still out on that. Vulture investing will do that), but he's no liberal, or even a moderate who would be acceptable because he is a decent public servant (using public office to give a no-bid contract to a friend will do that).
Harrison may proclaim himself to be a "very liberal Democrat" but the inconsistencies in his campaign contributions (Trent freakin' Franks???) and his support for a candidate who will actively work against him and the causes that he supports over a single personal grievance only speak to Harrison's naivete (a description of him from the New Times' piece on his involvement with AZScam).
Personally, I think he is being petty, but since I haven't met Harrison, I'll stick with the description of people who have met him.
Later...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
CD5 a dead heat in the latest polling
From The Hill -
Compared to earlier polling (covered in the linked article), Schweikert's support (44% now vs. 46% then) has stagnated while Mitchell's has risen (45% now vs. 38% then).
At least some of this may be a bit of "blowback" in response to theSchweikert campaign's 60 Plus Association's carpetbombing of District TV screens with their anti-Mitchell TV spot. (I can't remember the last time I could watch an entire hour without seeing the spot at least twice).
People are just sick of the shameless attacks on Mitchell without Schweikert saying how he would be better for the district than Mitchell.
Oh, and more than a few have noticed that the guy who gives his pay raises to charity (Mitchell) is being criticized by the guy who has made a mint off of vulturing foreclosed homes, undercutting neighborhood standards, and serving eviction notices to a 12-year-old.
Schweikert is running as a generic Republican in a district as geographically compact and as familiar with Mitchell as AZ-CD5 and Schweikert has also developed a credibility problem. It's still early, and he's got time to steer his campaign away from the shoals of electoral irrelevance, but early ballots drop in approximately two weeks.
He's got that long to get it together, but that would mean deviating from the script handed to him from on high (GOP pooh-bahs like John "Tan Man" Boehner). He's got some serious problems.
...It's 10:24 and there's that ad again (Channel 15). Gotta love industries with cash to burn - local TV stations need the revenue.
There's new evidence to support Democrats' claims that Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) is running a strong reelection campaign.With the usual caveats about internal polls, these latest numbers appear to be in line with what I've seen and heard anecdotally while walking, knocking, and talking in the district.
A new poll shows the two-term incumbent leading former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert (R) — albeit by a single point.
Mitchell had 45 percent support to 44 percent for Schweikert, with 6 percent for Libertarian Nick Coons and 5 percent undecided, in an internal poll obtained by the Ballot Box.
Compared to earlier polling (covered in the linked article), Schweikert's support (44% now vs. 46% then) has stagnated while Mitchell's has risen (45% now vs. 38% then).
At least some of this may be a bit of "blowback" in response to the
People are just sick of the shameless attacks on Mitchell without Schweikert saying how he would be better for the district than Mitchell.
Oh, and more than a few have noticed that the guy who gives his pay raises to charity (Mitchell) is being criticized by the guy who has made a mint off of vulturing foreclosed homes, undercutting neighborhood standards, and serving eviction notices to a 12-year-old.
Schweikert is running as a generic Republican in a district as geographically compact and as familiar with Mitchell as AZ-CD5 and Schweikert has also developed a credibility problem. It's still early, and he's got time to steer his campaign away from the shoals of electoral irrelevance, but early ballots drop in approximately two weeks.
He's got that long to get it together, but that would mean deviating from the script handed to him from on high (GOP pooh-bahs like John "Tan Man" Boehner). He's got some serious problems.
...It's 10:24 and there's that ad again (Channel 15). Gotta love industries with cash to burn - local TV stations need the revenue.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
David Schweikert has a remarkably low opinion of AZRep reporters
...Of course, he probably has an even lower opinion of wiseass bloggers. :)
From YouTube -
I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety. Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.
Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...
From YouTube -
I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety. Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.
Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Fun with campaign signs - lessons not learned edition
A mere few weeks after the end of the primary season, one that saw a one of the far right's fair-haired sons (J.D. Hayworth) fall far short in his challenge to one of the far right's pet targets, John McCain.
The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).
...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings. But I digress... :)
You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.
For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.
But he is...
Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor. It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that. What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)
Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.
I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.
Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state. As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy.
And who profit from the agony that they've caused.
The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).
...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings. But I digress... :)
You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.
For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.
But he is...
Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor. It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that. What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)
Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.
I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.
Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state. As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy.
And who profit from the agony that they've caused.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
When is age a factor in a candidate's viability? If you ask Republicans, only when the candidate is a Democrat
Has Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit started working directly for the Schweikert campaign (if he has, it's not obvious from the campaign's most recent filings with the FEC)? Or has he chosen to turn his blog into a Schweikert campaign press release outlet?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Fun with campaign signs
It hasn't even been a week, and the Schweikert campaign dirty tricks have already started...
Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -
And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...
There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more. The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.
This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles. It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).
It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice. In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time. In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).
It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signscoordinated "coincidentally timed"** with Americans for Prosperity television attacks on Harry Mitchell. Most campaigns try to start off on a positive note, trying to educate voters on why they should vote *for* their candidate, not why they should vote *against* their opposition.
However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona. As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.
Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic. He *had* received such an endorsement.
For another race.
Years before.
Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -
"CD5's Champion."
** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee. Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows. However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.
KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.
Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -
And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...
There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more. The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.
This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles. It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).
It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice. In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time. In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).
It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signs
However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona. As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.
Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic. He *had* received such an endorsement.
For another race.
Years before.
Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -
"CD5's Champion."
** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee. Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows. However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.
KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Billionaire wingers from New York trying to buy elections in Arizona
Since Tuesday's primary results came in, showing David Schweikert to be the Republican nominee in CD5, television viewers have been inundated with ads deriding Democrats in general and Representatives Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick in particular.
The spots are the product of a Republican front organization named "Americans for Prosperity." (AFP)(The spot specifically targeting Mitchell and Kirkpatrick is here. I won't embed it here, but will be referring to it later. :) )
AFP is dedicated to protecting the short-term financial interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy, organizing and funding campaigns against health care reform, efforts to address climate change, tobacco regulations, balanced state budgets, and anything resembling a social safety net (like Social Security). It has also played a big part in funnelling money and direction to the tea party movement within the Republican Party.
As this article from The New Yorker documents, AFP is the brainchild of David Koch who, with his brother Charles, owns almost all of Koch Industries, one of the country's biggest polluters (hence their opposition to industry/environmental regulations). Aside from AFP, the Koch brothers are literally two of the biggest contributors to Republican/corporate causes, donating approximately $100 million over the years.
That's all just background to the latest attack ads that they are bombing Arizonans with.
The spot that targets Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick specifically has, shall we say, a rather "weak" relationship with the truth (focusing on the Mitchell-related stuff) -
Lie: The spot refers to Mitchell as a "Washington liberal."
Reality: Mitchell was born and raised in Tempe. He married his high school sweetheart there and has lived in the same house in Tempe for almost 50 years. He taught at Tempe High for 28 years. He served Tempe (and Scottsdale and the rest of CD5) as a member of the City Council, Mayor, State Senator, and Congressman for almost 40 years.
Reality: Harry Mitchell is hardly a "liberal" (a fact that occasionally infuriates actual liberals in CD5, like yours truly :) ). Don't take my word for it - the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action graded Mitchell's voting record as 60% liberal, with the average Democratic grade as 85% and fellow AZers Pastor and Grijalva at 100%. Mitchell is one of an ever-shrinking group in Congress - the moderates.
Lie: When Harry Mitchell voted in support of the health care reform, he voted for something that will cost a trillion dollars,balloon the federal deficit, limit medical choices, and gut Medicare.
Reality: HCR will reduce the federal deficit by $143 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Reality: According to WebMD, HCR doesn't limit choice any more than the current system does.
Reality: According to the AARP (hardly a partisan organization), HCR actually strengthens Medicare by, among other things, reducing prescription costs for seniors.
Reality: David Schweikert, the AFP-supported Republican candidate in CD5, is actually the candidate in the race who supports Republican Representative Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing Social Security and ending Medicare.
Lie (or fib, at least): Arizonans "overwhelmingly" oppose HCR.
Reality: They are citing a poll from Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is known for being somewhat biased and partisan, favoring Republican positions in their polling results. (OK, if the RNC decided to say that Magellan and centuries of scientific observations are wrong and the world is actually flat, Rasmussen would come out with a poll that says that 70% of Americans agree...but I digress :) ).
Reality: More objective polling organizations, such as Gallup, show that the country is sharply divided on the issue.
Lie: The spot claims that Mitchell votes for the positions and interests of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership, ahead of the interests of Arizonans.
Reality: As this Washington Post study shows, Mitchell is the sixth-most independent member of Congress, voting with his party's leadership less than 80% of the time. He's easily the most independent member of the AZ delegation, Republican or Democrat.
...OK, that's just the wonky, facts-centered stuff.
The juicy, gossipy stuff from analyzing the ad is this -
One of the actors in the spot (pic from the spot below), Greg from Scottsdale (I think)
is "sort of" well known within local tea party circles -
The spots are the product of a Republican front organization named "Americans for Prosperity." (AFP)(The spot specifically targeting Mitchell and Kirkpatrick is here. I won't embed it here, but will be referring to it later. :) )
AFP is dedicated to protecting the short-term financial interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy, organizing and funding campaigns against health care reform, efforts to address climate change, tobacco regulations, balanced state budgets, and anything resembling a social safety net (like Social Security). It has also played a big part in funnelling money and direction to the tea party movement within the Republican Party.
As this article from The New Yorker documents, AFP is the brainchild of David Koch who, with his brother Charles, owns almost all of Koch Industries, one of the country's biggest polluters (hence their opposition to industry/environmental regulations). Aside from AFP, the Koch brothers are literally two of the biggest contributors to Republican/corporate causes, donating approximately $100 million over the years.
That's all just background to the latest attack ads that they are bombing Arizonans with.
The spot that targets Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick specifically has, shall we say, a rather "weak" relationship with the truth (focusing on the Mitchell-related stuff) -
Lie: The spot refers to Mitchell as a "Washington liberal."
Reality: Mitchell was born and raised in Tempe. He married his high school sweetheart there and has lived in the same house in Tempe for almost 50 years. He taught at Tempe High for 28 years. He served Tempe (and Scottsdale and the rest of CD5) as a member of the City Council, Mayor, State Senator, and Congressman for almost 40 years.
Reality: Harry Mitchell is hardly a "liberal" (a fact that occasionally infuriates actual liberals in CD5, like yours truly :) ). Don't take my word for it - the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action graded Mitchell's voting record as 60% liberal, with the average Democratic grade as 85% and fellow AZers Pastor and Grijalva at 100%. Mitchell is one of an ever-shrinking group in Congress - the moderates.
Lie: When Harry Mitchell voted in support of the health care reform, he voted for something that will cost a trillion dollars,balloon the federal deficit, limit medical choices, and gut Medicare.
Reality: HCR will reduce the federal deficit by $143 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Reality: According to WebMD, HCR doesn't limit choice any more than the current system does.
Reality: According to the AARP (hardly a partisan organization), HCR actually strengthens Medicare by, among other things, reducing prescription costs for seniors.
Reality: David Schweikert, the AFP-supported Republican candidate in CD5, is actually the candidate in the race who supports Republican Representative Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing Social Security and ending Medicare.
Lie (or fib, at least): Arizonans "overwhelmingly" oppose HCR.
Reality: They are citing a poll from Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is known for being somewhat biased and partisan, favoring Republican positions in their polling results. (OK, if the RNC decided to say that Magellan and centuries of scientific observations are wrong and the world is actually flat, Rasmussen would come out with a poll that says that 70% of Americans agree...but I digress :) ).
Reality: More objective polling organizations, such as Gallup, show that the country is sharply divided on the issue.
Lie: The spot claims that Mitchell votes for the positions and interests of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership, ahead of the interests of Arizonans.
Reality: As this Washington Post study shows, Mitchell is the sixth-most independent member of Congress, voting with his party's leadership less than 80% of the time. He's easily the most independent member of the AZ delegation, Republican or Democrat.
...OK, that's just the wonky, facts-centered stuff.
The juicy, gossipy stuff from analyzing the ad is this -
One of the actors in the spot (pic from the spot below), Greg from Scottsdale (I think)
is "sort of" well known within local tea party circles -
Not just a paid demonstrator/actor he.
He's a true believer and has a website where he offers to "coach" interested folks on living his philosophy...over the phone...at $45 per hour.
Gotta pay for the photoshopped photos of President Obama in white-face somehow...
AFP and the Koch brothers may think this guy and David Schweikert are typical CD5ers, but they lens through which they view Arizona is a rather long one (Oklahoma, D.C., and NYC) and rather scratched.
Of course, with Schweikert's penchant for vulture investing, picking the bones of desperate Arizona homeowners, Schweikert is probably what they *hope* the typical CD5er is like.
Harry Mitchell, with his lifetime in and dedication to Arizona, is far more representative of CD5.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday Night Videos
When I was younger (a year or two ago :) ), one of the coolest shows on broadcast TV was NBC's Friday Night Videos.
OK, it was "cool" for people who didn't have cable and access to MTV back when they took the "M" in "MTV" seriously and still played music...but I digress... :))
So it is with that as background, I announce the start of a new series of posts.
Once per week, on Friday nights, I'll feature the best in new political videos (What? You were expecting Lady Gaga or Katy Perry? ...not that a Katy Perry vid would be a bad thing...something to think about for after the election cycle is over... :) )
For the premiere video in this series (drumroll, please)...
Vulture, featuring David Schweikert.
More info at Your loss, his gain.
OK, it was "cool" for people who didn't have cable and access to MTV back when they took the "M" in "MTV" seriously and still played music...but I digress... :))
So it is with that as background, I announce the start of a new series of posts.
Once per week, on Friday nights, I'll feature the best in new political videos (What? You were expecting Lady Gaga or Katy Perry? ...not that a Katy Perry vid would be a bad thing...something to think about for after the election cycle is over... :) )
For the premiere video in this series (drumroll, please)...
Vulture, featuring David Schweikert.
More info at Your loss, his gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)