Need a laugh?

A quick, non-political post.

As you can see from my updated profile, I am reading the book "Nothing's Sacred" by Lewis Black. I bought and started reading it last night.

I am approximately halfway through already. It was obvious (to me, anyway) that this was going to be a good book when, reading "An Introduction to the Introduction" (bonus material for the trade paper edition) I came across this passage:

They should have a store next to the bookstore called the shit store where you can get shit books to read while on the shitter. No one reads great literature on the shitter.

Guess where I was when I read that passage.

My ribs still ache from laughing so hard.

Anyway, his writing is as observant and sharp as his comedy, but nowhere near as angry. I heartily recommend this book.

Later!!

News-filled weekend in AZ races, and a hope-filled one, too

While I've been working and away from the blog, it's been an interesting weekend on the AZ political scene...

Quarterly fund raising reports are in. The big surprise: challenger Harry Mitchell outraised incumbent JD Hayworth in CD5. Hayworth has more cash on hand, but Harry has more grassroots popularity. This is a real race. GO HARRY!!

Also very noteworthy, Ellen Simon in CD1 has done stunningly well as she campaigns to win the Democratic primary for a chance to unseat Rick Renzi.

Blog for Arizona, The Word From Arizona's Fifth District, and daringheart are among the bloggers reporting on the fundraising. Visit the FEC's website to get the reports directly.

In more Hayworth news, Lofty Donkey reports that in a fundraising letter, Congressman Hayworth wrote "I am embarrassed that I, as a leader, am partly responsible" for the government's failure to "secure our borders." The Mitchell for Congress campaign responded with a press release, quoting Harry Mitchell as saying "I'm glad my opponent finally admits that he's a part of the reason why Washington has failed to secure our border."

The Hayworth campaign will probably try to spin this as "my task isn't complete; I need two more years to whip the Washington wussies into line for America's safety." Or something similar.

Not a lot of good news this weekend for the incumbent.

And in an early but unsurprising descent into the gutter, Republican candidates for AZ Governor Gary Tupper and Mike Harris took swipes as Governor Napolitano for being single with no children.

Their quotes were curiously similar.

Tupper: "She's never been married. She never had kids."

Harris: "She's never been married. She's never had children."

Maybe it was a case of two candidates with the same mindset (and apparently, the same speechwriter, too!) trying to stave off impending also-ran status by using controversy to raise their profiles.

Maybe it was two party loyalists taking one for the team- they fling the mud and spout the bigotry and take any blowback while the frontrunners get to "tsk - tsk" from the sidelines and then repeat the same insults under the guise of disavowing them (see: Len Munsil.)

Either way, the Republicans are obviously desperate.

And the juicily hypocritical part? Also at the Republican family values love fest to lend his moral support was outgoing State Senate President Ken, father of Clifton 'Broomstick' Bennett.

Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has a great recap and analysis of the festivities.

Elizabeth Rogers has a couple of words to say on the subject, too. Ok, maybe more than a couple. :)

P.S - I did think of a third possibility here. One or both of Harris and Tupper hit on the Governor, and are trying to save face after striking out by casting aspersions on her sexual preferences.

I thought about adding this to the list, but decided it was too wiseass and immature of me to put it in my blog.

Right back at ya, Len. :)

...But the best news of the weekend actually happened today. It's anectdotal, but still a great morale booster, and after last week's DCCC cave-in, the morale boost was definitely appreciated.

Tonight, a woman that I work with, one of the most apolitical people that I know, asked how my "political thing" was going. (note: people that I work with know that I have become a little more active politically, volunteering and contributing and just helping out a little, but not much more than that. I try to leave politics out of work - that's not why we are there.) Anyway, I updated her on some of my activities and we started talking about different issues.

The topic moved to immigration, and she floored me when she asked rhetorically (slight paraphrase here - I wasn't taking notes), "why don't the people who are so worked up about Mexican immigrants put some effort into helping Mexico? Mexicans wouldn't want to leave there and come here if they could make a living there."

My jaw dropped, and my hopes for a sane outcome of this year's election cycle rose.

If an Independent, non-controvery seeking person who is usually a bystander to most political debates that don't directly affect her or hers can see through the smoke and bile with that kind of clarity and wisdom, the hot-button issues that the Republicans are using to turn out their base could backfire on them in a big way come November.

Side note, also anectdotal: If the 2008 Presidential election were held today, and the people that I work with were the only voters, Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. I'm not sold on her yet, but they are.

Anyway, have a good night.

I'm almost ashamed to be a Democrat tonight.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Appeasement: PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.

I don't know who at the DCCC made the decision to kill the web ad that has the Republicans all in a huff, but he or she (or they) needs to make it official and switch registration and enroll as a Republican. What they've done is to tell the Republicans and everyone else that the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party are easily bullied.

What the Republicans think doesn't matter, but now everyone else (like Independents and moderate leaning Reps - people whose support we need to start cleaning up the mess created by the neo-con Reps) that we can't be counted on to stand up for what's right.

I'm still going to support Democratic candidates such as Harry Mitchell, Janet Napolitano, Jim Pederson and others because they are better (by far) candidates than their opponents. However, the DCCC, like the DLC, is a detriment to the party and to the country, and will never get my support.

I understand that this attitude may offend some of the great people that I have gotten to know as I have become more active politically. That's unfortunate, because I have come to respect a lot of them and appreciate the work that they (and many others) are doing to try to make this district, state, and country better places to live.

But dammit, when I am out walking my precinct, talking to, connecting with, and (hopefully) persuading people, I want to be able to say "I'm a Democrat" with just a little pride.

Is that too much to ask?

Yeah, I'll probably calm down tomorrow, but this is one post I wanted to write while angry.

JD Hayworth, Congressman, Hypocrite

Yesterday, JD posted a letter on his campaign website protesting a DCCC web ad that briefly showed some coffins of American servicemen and -women. He accused the Democratic Party in general and Harry Mitchell in particular, of hoping to profit from the exploitation of "our fallen heroes."

His righteous indignation over the "exploitation" of dead Americans would have more credibility if he returned the thousands of dollars in contributions he has received from defense industry donors. Donors that have profited directly from the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and -women.

...See: Tray.com or the FEC's website. Just for fun, go to the FEC's database and type in "Spectrum Astro" in the employer field on the donor lookup page.

He would have more credibility if he called for greater oversight of defense contractors.

...See: his No vote on an amendment to HR4939 (March 16th, 2006) to stop contracts to corporations that overcharge.

He would have more credibility if he honored the returning American servicemen by ensuring that they and their families receive adequate medical care.

...See: his No vote on an amendment to HR1815 (May 25th, 2005) that would have expanded access to TriCare ( the military health system) for members of the National Guard and Reserve.

He would have more credibility if he was equally critical when George Bush campaigned on the images of our fallen heroes of 9/11 in his 2004 ads.

...See: Actually, there's nothing to see there, and that's the point. He never criticized Bush's use of the 'firefighters on 9/11' imagery; in fact, in Congress, he has voted with Bush 87% of the time.

JD should ask himself...no, we should ALL ask ourselves...

Which is more disrespectful:

Showing images of our honored dead for political gain, or cravenly trying to hide those same images, also for political gain?

Note: many of the stats cited here, and the leads on the votes documented here, can be found at the DCCC's webpage covering JD.

Edit to add:

BOOOO! to the DCCC. Apparently, they have caved in and decided that offending Republican sensibilities was going too far. They have removed the ad from their own website.

No wonder we keep losing elections.

Hayworth chimes in on an amendment to the VRA

And while what he said was spoken to everyone listening, his target audience was thousands of miles away.

During the debate on an amendment to the Voting Rights Act proposed by Steve King (R - IA) , JD Hayworth engaged in a colloquy (his word) with Rep. King. He asked if the proposed amendment to strip from the act the requirement that state and local governments provide multilingual ballots and interpreters in precincts that show a need for them would prevent tribal governments from, on their own, providing multilingual ballots and other assistance to the voters on their reservations.

Rep. King replied that no, tribal and other local governments would not be restricted.

It was obviously contrived theater, staged to mollify his contributors from various tribes. On the other hand, while it was contrived, at least he has learned from the Kyl debacle and made sure the exchange actually took place on the floor of the House.

In the end, Congressman Hayworth announced that he supported the amendment, claiming that it is "fiscally responsible." The amendment failed on a voice vote, with the sponsor then requesting a recorded vote. The amendment failed in the recorded vote, too.

On the subject of the entire issue (renewing the VRA), I find it discouraging that in the many years since the passage of the original act in 1965, not much has changed. The opponents of the renewal cite "states' rights" "unnecessary intrusion" and "unfunded mandate" much as the opponents of the original Act did. Of course, they also get to add some nativist rhetoric to the mix, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the people that need the language assistance are native-born citizens.

More later....

Edited to update:

The House passed the VRA renewal 390 - 33, with 9 not voting. Even with the bilingual ballot requirements, JD was smart enough to vote for it. Too many of those 'durn minority types in his district' (yes, even in Scottsdale! :) ).

AZ Congressmen Franks and Shadegg voted against it; Hayworth, Grijalva, Pastor, Renzi, Kolbe, and Flake voted for it.

The latest generic Dem. vs. Rep Gallup poll

Nothing really too surprising, but it's still heartening...

From Gallup Polls, via the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp:

July 12, 2006
Voter Preferences for Congress Still Favor the Democrats

...The Democrats' lead on this "generic ballot" measure has been remarkably
steady since late February, ranging from 9 to 16 points. Today's 10-point lead
is just slightly narrower than the average of 13 points seen in this period.
Earlier this year, the Democrats had a smaller lead of just six to seven
points.

Based on this paragraph, and looking at the results of the same survey graphed for the last year (approximately), there's nothing shocking or even new here, but the consistency is a great sign.

The part that is very interesting is in these paragraphs -

Democrats and Republicans are about even on this dimension in the latest poll: 97% of Democrats are supporting the Democratic candidate in their district, and 94% of Republicans are supporting the Republican. But the average since late February is 95% for the Democrats and 90% for the Republicans.

The fact that Republicans have been lagging behind the Democrats in support for their own parties' candidates this year is a notable departure from previous elections. According to Gallup's final pre-election polls in the last three national election years, the two parties showed about equal party loyalty, compared with the Democrats' slight advantage on this today.

That bodes well in races like the one in AZ CD5, with Harry Mitchell needing all the Democrat votes and some Republican crossovers. Fortunately, his opponent is the polarizing JD Hayworth, someone who embarrasses even staunch, life-long Republicans. The ones with ethics, anyway.

In 2004, a strong year for Repubs in general and facing Elizabeth Rogers of the ~$5000 campaign budget (and almost zero name recognition at the time), JD lost 2 points against registrations (59% of the vote vs. 61% of registered voters who declared a party preference calling themselves Republicans). This year, the Republican party in general is reeling and he's facing local political icon Harry Mitchell. His response has been to demonize Mexicans and the New York Times. That approach may appeal to the extreme right wing of his own party, but pushes away Independents and moderate Republicans.

Yup, JD's in trouble, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

The information in the Gallup Poll also looks good in CD8, where the race is for an open seat, matching up almost perfectly with the "generic ballot" methodology of the poll.

Just hope the CD8 Dems can rally around the winner of what is shaping up to be a rough primary.

As for the Pederson/Kyl U.S. Senate race, I'm not sure. The Republican incumbent Jon Kyl, while a lousy representative of AZ (imo), is nowhere near as overtly polarizing as Hayworth. In his situation, low name recognition as AZ's junior senator actually works in his favor.

On the other hand, he marches in lockstep with George W. Bush, and has that attempt to fool the Supreme Court to try and spin away from.

It's still an uphill battle for Jim Pederson, but the seat is very definitely in play even now.

Another ethical lapse by Kyl could push enough Independents and moderate Republicans over to Pederson on Election Day to send Jon Kyl to his next job, lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.

From GlaxoSmithKline (this looks perfect for him - hope they hold it open until November :) )

Requisition Number: 34565
Job Title:
Manager/Senior Manager, Federal Government Relations
Position:
Full-Time Regular
Open Date:
Friday, June 02, 2006 2:12:20 PM
Functional Area:
Corporate / Public Affairs
Location:
Washington, District of Columbia



Required Degrees:
Bachelors Degree

Experience Required:
7 years
Relocation:
Yes
Basic Qualifications:
Bachelor's Degree required. Minimum 7 years in legislative, lobbying,
government or related field. Requires specialized and in-depth knowledge and
experience in public policy development and in the legislative and regulatory
process. The job also requires specialized knowledge on how the changing
political environment may influence the strategies and outcomes regarding a
particular issue.

Preferred Qualifications:
JD or graduate degree in political science health policy or related field preferred.

Details:
Monitor Congressional and Executive Branch initiatives relevant to GSK and to assist in analyzing the potential impact on GSK and developing and advocating positions on those issues. Work with senior management of the commercial businesses to develop objectives that will add commercial value to those businesses. Interact with all levels of management within the business units (as well as legal, communications, R&D, and policy funtions) to develop government relations objectives and strategies and then to secure the attainment of those objectives through effective advocacy in the US Congress. Also work with numerous outside constituencies...

P.S. - while the rest of the major races in AZ are probably too lopsided for the slip in Republican party loyalty to make a difference, CD1 could get interesting if Rick Renzi makes a misstep. I would love to hear from someone familiar with CD1 to give their take on the poll.


Good night!

11 July 2006 LD17 Dems meeting

The D17 Dems held their monthly meeting last night. It was a fairly normal meeting, with thanks for the people who volunteered to help at various events, announcements of upcoming events, a call for help with various Get Out The Vote (G.o.T.V.) activities, and encouraging District volunteers and PCs to push Early Voting and Vote by Mail in their precincts.

The highlight of the evening was when the D17 Democratic candidates for the Legislature were invited to give campaign updates and speak on their ideas/positions on healthcare.

There was an Arizona Education Association event at the same time as this meeting, so not all candidates were present or were present for only part of the meeting. House candidate Angie Crouse and current House member and Senate candidate Meg Burton Cahill couldn't make it due to the conflict, but had representatives at the meeting. CD5 Congressional candidate Harry Mitchell was also at the AEA meeting.

House candidate David Schapira was selected by lot to speak first. For his campaign update he let us know that he is knocking on 1000 doors per month and if he hasn't been out walking in your precinct yet, he soon will be. He also announced that he has received the endorsements of County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and State Rep. Robert Meza.

On healthcare, he supports some type of universal health care, perhaps along the line of the recently-passed Massachusetts model. He cited the statistics that 1 in 5 Arizonans and 1 in 8 children in Arizona don't have health care coverage, and believes that is it time for Arizona to "not be last" among the states in this area .

He also noted that if something doesn't get through the Republican-controlled legislature, a ballot initiative might be necessary.

Current Senator and candidate for the House Ed Ableser spoke next. In his campaign update, he advised he is also out walking a lot of neighborhoods. He also mentioned that he took part in a Legislative Council concerning the measures submitted for the ballot in November.

Right now, it looks as if the Protect Marriage Arizona (anti-same sex marriage and anti-unmarried couples of any gender combination) initiative won't make it to the ballot because it tries to do too many things. Under AZ law, ballot initiatives can address only one issue at a time.

Another measure, the public smoking partial ban backed by the tobacco industry, has a problem too. One of sloppiness. Apparently, whoever wrote the text of it forgot to put in an enactment clause; even if it passes, there's no mechanism for it to become law.

Regarding healthcare, he wants to lower income threshold for AHCCCS eligibility, stating that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. If not purely univeral health care, his idea is close enough. He also thinks that providing tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees would greatly help increase coverage in AZ.

Rhett Wilson, the last candidate for the House that was present, spoke next. He too has been out walking precincts, 60+ so far and counting.

As with the other candidates, he also supports some kind of universal health care, but he believes there is a greater issue here than simple lack of coverage issues. He believes the main culprit in the health care crisis in the US is the inordinate influence wielded by Big Pharma and Big Insurance over our government and our lives. He used the phrase "pillaging the American economy."

Edit to add observation: In case you might Rhett was spouting some overblown but meaningless rhetoric, on Tuesday, the US Senate approved a bill that would bar the use of "federal funds from being used to confiscate prescription drugs from Canada." The bill passed 68 - 32. One of the 32? Longtime tool of Big Pharma, Arizona's own Senator Jon Kyl. Thanks to AZCongressWatch for the heads up on the story.

Dana Kennedy of the Crouse for the House campaign gave a very brief update, announcing that Angie Crouse has received the endorsements/approvals of the AFL/CIO, AFSCME, and the Arizona Education Association.

Personal note: It was nice to see a candidate (Wilson) staking out some territory without attacking the other candidates. Hope the civility keeps up.

Personal note 2: While I will have no problem supporting any 2 of the 4 House candidates in the general election, I still have no clue as to who I am going to vote for in the primary. They are all solid, hard-working candidates who would be great representatives of LD17 in the Lege if elected.

All in all, it was a good, informative evening.

Next meeting: August 1st at 7 p.m.

Other upcoming events of interest:

July 24th, Candidate Forum hosted by the East Valley Tribune, Tempe City Council Chambers, 7:30 p.m. (info courtesy Rhett Wilson's website)

July 26th, Candidate Forum hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, ASU's Old Main building in the Carson Ballroom, 6 - 8 p.m.

All of the campaigns are looking for volunteers for phonebanking and precinct walks. Contact any that you are interested in helping.

Sierra Club of AZ issues report card on AZ Lege

The Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club issued its report card evaluating the 2006 session of the AZ Legislature. The press release is here.

Of particular interest to voters in LD17 are the grades for our representatives:

Meg Burton Cahill - A+
Ed Ableser - A
Laura Knaperek - F

Can you guess which one is the Republican? LOL.

Complete Senate report card (.pdf) here.
Complete House report card (also .pdf) here.

Common sense? From a Republican? WTF?

Is the calendar right? Is this an election year? Jeff Flake is showing way too much reasonableness and rational thought during this, our summer of hot air and hotter vitriol.

Responding to a post from Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Flake wrote in The Hill's CongressBlog:

More of the Same Won’t Work for Cuba Policy

July 11th, 2006

It’s certainly prudent for the U.S. to begin to think about how we will interact with a post-Castro Cuba. However, it would be imprudent to keep in place policies that have made Castro the longest-reigning dictator in the world.

Simply put, more of the same won’t hasten democratic reforms in Cuba.

The interests of democracy, both in Cuba and here in the U.S., would be better served by a more honest examination of our current Cuba policy.

Keep up this brand of moderation and you just might be kicked out of the Republican party, no matter what kind of fiscal and social conservative cred you have.

Sen. Kyl feeling a little heat over attempt at Supreme deception

As has been noted in many places, both MSM and blogosphere, Sen. Jon Kyl inserted a fake exchange into the Congressional Record concerning the treatment of detainees (December 21, 2005).

In and of itself, this is not rare, as Senators frequently "revise and extend" their comments in the record, even if those comments weren't uttered on the floor of the Senate. While the manufacturing of a fake conversation between Senators is unusual, it's not an egregious misuse of the "revise and extend" privilege.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. And Jon Kyl (and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) cited the faux debate in an amicus brief submitted to the Court.

And was caught at it, and called out on it, by Justice John Paul Stevens.

From his opinion on page 23 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

While statements attributed to the final bill’s two other sponsors,Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin’s contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pendinghabeas cases, see 151 Cong. Rec. S14263–S14264 (Dec. 21, 2005), those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate debate.

Needless to say, Sen. Kyl has been rationalizing his actions as just "how the Senate operates.”

That begs the question - when did it become SOP for the Senate to lie to the USSC?

Well, actually, it hasn't.

U.S. Senate historian Richard Baker called it "unprecedented."

My questions to Sen. Kyl are these:

If the fact that President Clinton lied during a deposition warranted impeachment proceedings, what punishment does lying to the Supreme Court merit?

What happens to a lawyer who lies to a court? It seems that nothing happens, though it should mean automatic disbarrment. Fortunately, we have another option here.

Voting the lawyer in question out of office.

For the next few months, we are stuck with a Senator with no credibility. From FindLaw's article on the controversy:

Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.

In November we get to send a message to you and to everyone else in D.C - Enough is enough.

Senator, I'd ask if you learned a lesson from this, but your shameless rationalizations are a clear answer to that.

The bottom line Senator is that YOU ARE A LAWYER. If anyone in the Senate should know better, you should.

Scottsdale's getting noticed in the BIG cities now....

Edited on July 11 to add:

It's nice to be ahead of the curve for once. The local media has finally picked up on the Chicago Tribune's article.

AZCentral.com's Plugged In has a piece on it, the Scottsdale Republic mentioned, and the East Valley Tribune ran the entire article on Monday.

Wonder if the Mayor and City Council are enjoying the free publicity....

End edit.



Thanks to my sister Patti for sending the link to this article to me...

From the Chicago Tribune:

A new sin city: `Snottsdale'

Arizona enclave of the rich and famous is gaining
a national reputation as home of the vapid and lustful

The story starts with the ep of MTV's My Super Sweet Sixteen that featured the conspicuous excess of a Scottsdale teenager (and her family), moves through the (cancelled!) bored tawdriness of Tuesday Night Book Club, breezes past the hubbub over Jenna Jameson, her strip club, and the SOB ordinance, and enthusiastically dwells on the dedicated priggishness of the Pink Taco affair.

There's even a good quote or two in the piece.

From Councilwoman Betty Drake, talking about the late, unlamented Tuesday Night Book Club -

"Oh, get over it," she said. "So what if people want to make fun of us? Every city has its own particular brand of strangeness. For some it may be gangs or drugs or troubled youth. We just happen to have some over-Botoxed blonds with oversexed tendencies."

From Scottsdale resident Bob Amato, on the Pink Taco fiasco -

"Listen, dear," Amato, 85, said in an interview. "Nine out of 10 of us would have never known what that term even meant without the mayor and others explaining it."

For the record, I guess that I'm a top 10%-er, because I *did* know what the term meant before Mayor Manross got all flustered, and in terms of problems facing our city, I will gladly help the city address the over-sexed blondes issue. Maybe in a research capacity???? :)

More seriously, while there is a lot of truth to Councilwoman Drake's point, Scottsdale has gangs, drugs, and troubled youth in it; however, since nearly everyone involved is rich, white and Republican, they aren't considered "problems."

I realize that the "powers-that-be" in Scottsdale are very image conscious, but a lot of this is their own fault. The small amount of buzz from the TV shows has already faded, but the SOB and Pink Taco notoriety was brought on by the Mayor and her associates creating conflicts where none existed. And more significantly, that notoriety will continue so long as the Mayor and City Council believe that safeguarding the morals of freely consenting adults is more important than safeguarding the City treasury (see: SkySong or that stupid freakin' tent in north Scottsdale.)

I need to be educated re: AZ election laws affecting federal offices

From the Globe, Arizona Silverbelt :

{snip}

...Also, as required by ARS 19-22 (B), Secretary Brewer announced the following list of candidates for the office of United States Representatives in Congress who filed a statement on recall.

The following candidates filed a statement on recall agreeing to resign if not reelected on a recall vote...

This piqued my curiosity, so I looked up the ARS section cited in the article.

From ARS 19-22:

19-221. Statement on recall
A. Prior to a primary or any election, a candidate for the office of United States senator, or
representative in Congress, may file with the secretary of state a statement addressed to the people as follows: "If elected to the office (here name the office) I shall deem myself responsible to the people and under obligation to them to resign immediately if not re-elected on a recall vote", or: "If elected to the office (here name the office) I shall not deem myself under obligation to the people to resign if not re-elected by a recall vote."

B. The secretary of state shall give the statement to the public press when made.

19-222. Pledge to resign subject to recall
A. A United States senator or representative in Congress who has pledged himself to the people and under obligation to them to resign immediately if not re-elected upon a recall vote shall be subject to the laws of the state relating to recall of public officers, and may be recalled and his successor elected in like manner as a state officer.

B. The laws of the state relating to recall of state officers and recall elections are made applicable to the recall of a senator or representative.

My questions are thus -

1. Is this legally binding upon the candidates/incumbents? Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the states handle the elections of their representatives...

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;

...but Section 5 of the same Article explicitly states that it takes a 2/3 vote of the body to remove a member.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Nothing is mentioned about recall elections or granting the various states the authority to remove their representatives.

2. Has any district in AZ ever recalled its Congressman? If so, did the member resign? Was the AZ law able to survive a challenge in a federal court?

I'm not being my normal wonderfully sarcastic self here - I'm really curious. Is this an enforceable law, or is it just a quaint quirk, a bit of interesting but ultimately meaningless posturing on the part of whatever session of the Lege passed and whichever governor signed this law?

For the record, I don't have a problem with elected officials, even federal office-holders, being subject to recall. Nope, not at all.

Anyway, according to the article, most Congressional candidates did sign the pledge -

The following candidates filed a statement on recall agreeing to resign if not reelected on a recall vote: Frank Antenori, Mike Caccioppoli, Suchindran “Chat” Chatterjee, Ron Drake, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Susan Friedman, Glenn Fuller, Gabrielle Giffords, Randy Graf, Raul M. Grijalva, J.D. Hayworth, Mike Hellon, Steve Huffman, William “Bill” Johnson, Don Karg, Jeffrey Lynn “Jeff” Latas, Vic Mckerlie, Harry Mitchell, David F. Nolan, Herb Paine, Ed Pastor, Rick Renzi, Alex Rodriguez, Gene Scharer, David Schlosser, Francine Shacter, John Shadegg, Joseph Sweeney, Patty Weiss and Ken Woodward.

Libertarians Mark Yannone and Powell Gammill did not agree to resign, and 6 other candidates did not return the statement at all.

Anyway, any help filling in the blanks in my education on the nuances Arizona electoral law would be greatly appreciated.

The San Diego Congressional Hearing is on CSPAN

right now.

Only have one impression so far - most of the members, Rep and Dem alike, are very good at phrasing questions to get the answers they want to hear.

They're also very good at expressing their opinions in the form of a question, too.

Tune in if you have a chance....

Pssst....the Air Force may be watching...pass it on...

From Air Force Link (courtesy GovExec.com):

6/29/2006 - ARLINGTON, Va. (AFPN) -- The Air Force Office of Scientific Research has begun funding a new research area that includes a study of blogs. Blog research may provide information analysts and warfighters with invaluable help in fighting the war on terrorism. Drs. Brian Ulicny, senior scientist, and Mieczyslaw Kokar, president, Versatile Information Systems Inc., Framingham, Mass., will receive approximately $450,000 in funding for the three-year project titled, "Automated Ontologically-Based Link Analysis of International Web Logs for the Timely Discovery of Relevant and Credible Information."

In keeping with my new Truth in Press Releases Initiative, I will translate for you - "Air Force paying $450,000 to company to read blogs."

Something most of us do for free.

Hmmm...maybe some of us should join forces and incorporate. That company has the Air Force contract sewn up, but the Army, Navy, Marines and even Coast Guard are still ripe for the picking...lol.

...Anyone who is attending the fireworks show in Tempe tomorrow is invited to stop by the voter registration booth sponsored by the Arizona Democratic Party. Besides registering to vote, visitors can speak to the many candidates who will be volunteering their time to assist at the booth. Also, many of the campaigns will have separate booths for you to visit and speak to the candidates.

So arrive early (gates open at 4), find a good seat for the fireworks, and meet the candidates.

Have a great 4th!!

JD Hayworth (R - Blowhard)

JD has been spewing his usual vitriol, but in a bit of a changeup, has been directing it at the New York Times instead of Mexicans. This has been covered pretty well elsewhere, in blogs and the MSM, and I wasn't going to post about it.

Then I came across JD's own entry in The Hill's CongressBlog. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has his own CongressBlog entry on the topic here.

JD's entry is short, so here it is:

Re:New York Times–Revoke Their Credentials, Time To Go
June 28th, 2006

As a former journalist I have the utmost respect for the freedom of the press. But the New York Times has repeatedly abused that freedom by publishing classified information to the detriment of our national security, in the process putting lives in danger and possibly breaking the law. Revoking the congressional credentials of Times reporters does not restrict their rights - it merely restricts their access to the Capitol Complex. Let’s not forget that the New York Times is our guest at the Capitol. The paper has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to have a presence here. The paper has worn out its welcome and its time for them to go.

Couple of points JD....

1. You read words off of a teleprompter or a script. You weren't a journalist, you were a talking head.

2. You wrote "that the New York Times is our guest at the Capitol."

Let's be clear here. JD, you are OUR guest at the Capitol. Perhaps the New York Times "has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to have a presence" there, but it should be noted - neither do you. They have a job that calls for their presence there; right now, so do you.

Bottom line - the Times did its job, reporting on news that concerns all Americans. It ISN'T your job to stop them from doing theirs.

If the Administration, with your obvious support, (stop me if you've ever heard this one! :) ) is doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide, right?

JD - face the facts. You've worn out your welcome and it's time for you to go.