Tonight's meeting was pretty low-key. Lots of candidate updates and calls for volunteers to help with get out the vote projects and with poll working/watching on primary day (September 12).
State Senate candidate (and current LD17 State Rep,) Meg Burton-Cahill spoke on how the D17 Senate race is one of the 3 Senate races getting the most attention in the fight to protect the Governor's veto. She also said that she has been hearing a lot of people in the district are considering her race a near shoo-in for her, but she isn't one of those people. She is taking Rose Crutcher's candidacy very seriously, and expects the Republicans to expend a lot of money and effort toward taking the D17 Senate seat away from the Dems.
She also expects that "as temperatures start cooling down the race will start heating up."
Candidate for Kyrene District Constable Jon Levenson also spoke for a moment.
A write-in candidate for Kyrene Justice of the Peace, Elvis Richardson, announced his candidacy and asked for support.
Note: His opponent on the primary ballot is Elizabeth Rogers.
The D17 candidates for the State House of Representatives were given the opportunity to answer the question "Why I will win in November."
Rhett Wilson - He talked about his work ethic (and lauded the other candidates for theirs, too), doing lots of walking and knocking. He will fight for what's best, not what's best for the party. He also talked about his non-partisan (and presumably, bi-partisan) experience when he was part of the Kearny Town Council.
In his campaign update, he announced an event on August 16th. Details to be put up on his website within a day or so.
David Schapira - He told us that there are two components to a Democratic victory, with one easy to achieve, and one difficult to achieve. First, present a stronger message than the Republicans (easy part) then get the message out (not so easy.) He is also working to get out the vote of "low efficacy Democrats" (i.e. - Dems that don't vote often). He also spoke on the passion he brings to the issues, and to campaigning.
In his campaign update, he also mentioned that he too is doing a lot of walking and knocking and other outreach activities.
Angie Crouse - spoke about how Republican incumbent Laura Knaperek is very vulnerable due to her extreme voting record. She thinks it is very possible (from me: with a little luck and a lot of work) for the Dems to sweep the 3 D17 seats in the Lege. She went on to discuss her work ethic, that running has been a full-time job, on top of the full-time job she already has; her large base of dedicated volunteers; her 10 endorsements; the demographics of the district (>50% of the voting population is made up of women).
In her update, she mentioned walking and knocking, as well as the forums from last week (Clean Elections forum here - the candidates are working to get the EV Tribune forum posted on their websites) as well as the number of endorsements she has received. See her website for the complete list.
Ed Ableser - He detailed his contacts in the community and the many civic boards and agencies that he has worked with. He called LD17 a "progressive hotbed, a Democratic hotbed." He also told us that he has a new role model, Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, whom he met in Denver this past weekend.
As with the other candidates, in his update, he talked about 'walking', though in his case, he talked about "walking with the 'stars' ". In this case, the 'stars' are other Democratic legislators (and others) coming out to walk the district on Saturdays with him.
After that, the meeting moved on to more 'nuts and bolts' types of topics.
The county needs paid poll workers for both the primary and the general. Contact the Maricopa County Recorder's Office for details, either at the office's election worker webpage, or by calling 602.506.1511.
The party also needs poll watchers, both official and unofficial. Contact Randall Holmes for details.
Robin Stamp of the Working Young Democrats spoke for a minute about what they are about, and what they are doing. They have an upcoming fundraiser at Terry Goddard's home on the 15 of August and a regular Friday happy hour in downtown Phoenix. The details of both are on their website, or will be once the Young Democrats website is back up.
As the elections near, the events calendar is filling.
Upcoming events include:
A Happy Hour for Harry Mitchell on August 18 at the clubhouse at ASU's Karsten Golf Course. Contact the Mitchell campaign for details. (Personal note: this would be a perfect opportunity to play a great course in the afternoon, shower in the complimentary locker room {the other guests will thank you, lol}, and meet Harry Mitchell. A good day with just the golf, made great with meeting Harry. :) )
On August 22, there will be a Happy Hour with Mark Manoil (running for Corporation Commission) at the Four Peaks Brewery in Tempe. Festivities start at 7:00 p.m.
August 26 - There will be a potluck get-together for LD17 and LD18 at the Escalante Community Center in Tempe. Candidates Ed Ableser, Angie Crouse, David Schapira, Rhett Wilson, Meg Burton-Cahill (all from D17), Tammie Pursley (State Rep. candidate from LD18) and Harry Mitchell (CD5) are scheduled to attend. Festivities begin at 1. *Indoors*. :))
Other stuff today:
- - - A number of emails were making the rounds today, encouraging people to visit the website of Senator John Edwards' OneAmerica Committee to vote for Harry Mitchell and the Eventual Nominee from CD8 as 2 of the candidates he will support and campaign for.
Already voted. Everyone should. 'Nuff said.
- - - The National Association of Manufacturers is urging its members to support the repeal of the estate tax and to lobby senators to pass the Jon Kyl-sponsored bill that repeals it. (Color me shocked. Really. :)) )
Personal observation: I did a search of the Internal Revenue Code for the phrase "death tax". The search parameters returned 4 results (sections of the IRC that had the phrase "death tax."
Specifically, US CODE: TITLE 26,2642. INCLUSION RATIO, US CODE: TITLE 26,2053. EXPENSES, INDEBTEDNESS, AND TAXES (2 hits), and US CODE: TITLE 26,2501. IMPOSITION OF TAX
Those sections all referred to "state death taxes", "foreign death taxes" or "state or foreign death taxes."
There is no federal "death tax" section.
Just something to remember when your favorite Republican starts ranting about the "unfairness of the death tax", or something similar.
...Charlie Cook of the National Journal, in a column on GovExec.com, wrote about the uncertainty in trying to predict the outcomes of the U.S. House and Senate races this fall. Among his observations of the causes of this is that a number of incumbents, including Jon Kyl, are "facing more competitive challenges than anyone thought six months ago." Nothing really new here, but it's nice to see a race besides CD5 and CD8 getting some national attention.
Good night!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
Tonight, the stench of hypocrisy rising from DC is overwhelming
Warning: rant ahead.
I had one more post for the week in me, but wasn't sure what it was going to be about.
I thought about writing about a web misdirection incident, first reported by Dan Nowicki at azcentral.com's Plugged In. Someone registered four websites that look like they belong to Republican candidate for Governor Don Goldwater. However, anybody visiting those sites would be redirected to Governor Napolitano's campaign site.
While it's worthy of a couple of chuckles, the prank is too sophomoric to be worth more.
I thought about writing about D17 State Rep Laura Knaperek's ties to the ultra conservative Christian political group The Center for Arizona Policy to illustrate the point I made in a previous post that she talks like a moderate when she is around constituents, but acts and votes like a hard-line ideologue when Joe and Jane Average and the little Averages aren't looking.
But that's a little too wonky, and that topic is better suited for closer to the primary and/or general election.
Then the U.S. House Republican leadership dropped a gift in my lap. A cynically, abominably hypocritical gift that stinks to high heaven, but a gift nonetheless.
They tied a minimum wage hike to permanent reduction of the federal estate tax and ramrodded it to a vote late on Friday night. Actually, 1:41 a.m. EDT on Saturday morning.
Bill Thomas (R-CA) controlled the debate on the Republican side, with Charles Rangel (D-NY) leading the Democrats.
The debate went as expected, with the Democrats decrying the crass politics involved, and the Republicans blatantly displaying their contempt for the Democrats, mocking them at every turn. This is one where the written record will in no way express the utter vileness of the Republican speakers. The Republicans to a man (and woman - Nancy Johnson (R-CT) was part of this little Republican railroad job) were openly smarmy, saccharin and sarcastic. Their tones of voice told a story far different than the words they were saying.
Anybody who TiVO'ed the debate, or might be able to get it from CSPAN or YouTube, should send it to the opponent of every Repub who spoke tonight. Letting voters see for themselves the open contempt with which they treated the Democrats and the working poor is the best way to defeat them.
JD Hayworth was the only Republican water-carrier from AZ who spoke on the bill.
He described the Democrats as "Orwellian" and quoted from Alice in Wonderland ("curiouser and curiouser") when belittling the Democrats' objections to coupling approx. $4000 per year of help for the 7,000,000 poorest working Americans (of course, only if they can work for it) with a blatant giveaway of BILLION$ to the wealthiest ones.
As bad as JD was, Thomas was the worst. After almost every Democratic speaker, he would take 30 seconds of his side's time to mock the Dem speaker. The FDA may have to declare the floor of the House to be a cancer 'hot-spot' because of the amount of saccharin he spewed tonight.
I expect this kind of behavior in the amateur hour known as the AZ Lege, but not in a body that is supposed to be the 'big leagues'.
Anyway, the final vote was 230 in favor, 180 opposed, 1 present, and 22 not voting. And 34 Democrats crossed over to support the Reps. Arrggghhh! They gave this one to the Reps.
For the AZ delegation:
Ayes - Hayworth, Franks, Shadegg, Kolbe, Renzi
Nays - Flake (WTF? Maybe he's got something the others don't. Like a soul. Or maybe he just hates poor people more than he worships the ultra wealthy. Got to look into that. ), Pastor, Grijalva.
Two weeks ago, I wrote that I was almost ashamed to be a Democrat (over the DCCC removal of an ad from their website due to Republican objections); tonight, I am proud to be one, thanks to Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Sander Levin, Jay Inslee, and the rest of the Democrats who stood up against the overwhelming hypocrisy of the Republicans. Still ticked about the removal of the ad, though. :)
The only shame that I feel now is that I have to tell people that my congressman is JD Hayworth.
That shame will turn around in November.
Note: a more objective (i.e. less angry) analysis of the events of the evening can be found here, and a news report here. Also, Desert Beacon has a pretty good, though almost as angry, recap (spread over a few posts).
Have a great weekend, everybody!
I had one more post for the week in me, but wasn't sure what it was going to be about.
I thought about writing about a web misdirection incident, first reported by Dan Nowicki at azcentral.com's Plugged In. Someone registered four websites that look like they belong to Republican candidate for Governor Don Goldwater. However, anybody visiting those sites would be redirected to Governor Napolitano's campaign site.
While it's worthy of a couple of chuckles, the prank is too sophomoric to be worth more.
I thought about writing about D17 State Rep Laura Knaperek's ties to the ultra conservative Christian political group The Center for Arizona Policy to illustrate the point I made in a previous post that she talks like a moderate when she is around constituents, but acts and votes like a hard-line ideologue when Joe and Jane Average and the little Averages aren't looking.
But that's a little too wonky, and that topic is better suited for closer to the primary and/or general election.
Then the U.S. House Republican leadership dropped a gift in my lap. A cynically, abominably hypocritical gift that stinks to high heaven, but a gift nonetheless.
They tied a minimum wage hike to permanent reduction of the federal estate tax and ramrodded it to a vote late on Friday night. Actually, 1:41 a.m. EDT on Saturday morning.
Bill Thomas (R-CA) controlled the debate on the Republican side, with Charles Rangel (D-NY) leading the Democrats.
The debate went as expected, with the Democrats decrying the crass politics involved, and the Republicans blatantly displaying their contempt for the Democrats, mocking them at every turn. This is one where the written record will in no way express the utter vileness of the Republican speakers. The Republicans to a man (and woman - Nancy Johnson (R-CT) was part of this little Republican railroad job) were openly smarmy, saccharin and sarcastic. Their tones of voice told a story far different than the words they were saying.
Anybody who TiVO'ed the debate, or might be able to get it from CSPAN or YouTube, should send it to the opponent of every Repub who spoke tonight. Letting voters see for themselves the open contempt with which they treated the Democrats and the working poor is the best way to defeat them.
JD Hayworth was the only Republican water-carrier from AZ who spoke on the bill.
He described the Democrats as "Orwellian" and quoted from Alice in Wonderland ("curiouser and curiouser") when belittling the Democrats' objections to coupling approx. $4000 per year of help for the 7,000,000 poorest working Americans (of course, only if they can work for it) with a blatant giveaway of BILLION$ to the wealthiest ones.
As bad as JD was, Thomas was the worst. After almost every Democratic speaker, he would take 30 seconds of his side's time to mock the Dem speaker. The FDA may have to declare the floor of the House to be a cancer 'hot-spot' because of the amount of saccharin he spewed tonight.
I expect this kind of behavior in the amateur hour known as the AZ Lege, but not in a body that is supposed to be the 'big leagues'.
Anyway, the final vote was 230 in favor, 180 opposed, 1 present, and 22 not voting. And 34 Democrats crossed over to support the Reps. Arrggghhh! They gave this one to the Reps.
For the AZ delegation:
Ayes - Hayworth, Franks, Shadegg, Kolbe, Renzi
Nays - Flake (WTF? Maybe he's got something the others don't. Like a soul. Or maybe he just hates poor people more than he worships the ultra wealthy. Got to look into that. ), Pastor, Grijalva.
Two weeks ago, I wrote that I was almost ashamed to be a Democrat (over the DCCC removal of an ad from their website due to Republican objections); tonight, I am proud to be one, thanks to Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Sander Levin, Jay Inslee, and the rest of the Democrats who stood up against the overwhelming hypocrisy of the Republicans. Still ticked about the removal of the ad, though. :)
The only shame that I feel now is that I have to tell people that my congressman is JD Hayworth.
That shame will turn around in November.
Note: a more objective (i.e. less angry) analysis of the events of the evening can be found here, and a news report here. Also, Desert Beacon has a pretty good, though almost as angry, recap (spread over a few posts).
Have a great weekend, everybody!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Hayworth Opposed to Pence and Hutchison's Indentured Servitude Proposal
Hell has frozen over tonight.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) are proposing a plan for "Securing the Borders and Reforming Immigration Without Amnesty." The official name is The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act.
Under this plan, undocumented immigrants to the U.S. would return to their home countries, and get matched with a corporation looking for workers at an "Ellis Island Center", then apply for a "Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa." If accepted after passing background, criminal and health checks, these "SAFE" workers will have to reapply every two years for up to twelve total years. After that, if eligible, the worker will have to apply for an "X-Change" Visa for 5 more years, and every 5 years after that.
Workers would be able to leave the U.S. at any time and apply for a permanent visa.
Workers' families (spouse, children) could come with the worker if they passed the same checks.
Workers and their families would pay the same taxes (income, SS, Medicare, etc.) but would not be eligible for any government benefits other than those mandated for non-immigrant visa holders.
There are other details, but these are most of the high points.
Where do I start?
How about with a question, like "Are members of Congress subject to random drug testing?" These two definitely should be 'randomly' tested.
Or to be more tactful, were they under a doctor's care when they came up with the brilliant idea that the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. would just up and leave on the chance, only the *chance* mind you, that they might be allowed to return?
As for these "Ellis Island Centers" - they "will be managed by American-owned private employment agencies that open branches (“Ellis Island Centers”) in NAFTA and CAFTA-DR nations." In addition to taking applications and pairing up the foreign workers with their new masters...errr...'employers'...the Centers will be responsible for running the criminal, background and health checks on the workers.
Maybe my memory is a little hazy on this and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the last time we allowed corporations to be responsible for the security of the U.S. they let 19 guys with boxcutters change the course of American history. And ensure a 2nd term for the worst president ever.
The employers that are part of the program will get to fill jobs that they have not been able to fill after advertising "the job opening[s] at a wage that is commensurate with the trade or industry in that locality (but that is not a Davis-Bacon wage requirement)."
That Davis-Bacon exemption means that the employers would not have to offer the jobs at the prevailing wage for the industry and area; they would just call whatever they wanted to pay "reasonable" and go running for cheap labor supplied by the U.S. government when no one jumped at the chance to break their backs for minimum wage and no benefits.
One of the summaries that I read stated that the jobs available would be those that employers could not fill at market wages. Now, I've only taken a couple of introductory economics courses, but it seems to me that means that the offered wages were *below* what the market called for.
The proposal is also a way to get the creation of a national ID card and registry in through the back door.
First, the setup - "...SAFE Visas will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards that contain information about the job... and it will contain personal and biometric information about the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder."
Later, the coup de grace - "...Six years after enactment the nationwide employment eligibility verification system will go into effect for all employees. At that time, employers will be required to verify the legal status of their entire workforce." [Emphasis theirs]
Other nice tidbits in the proposal:
"Upon leaving the employ of a sponsoring employer, a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder will be provided with a 45-day period in which to find a new sponsoring employer through an Ellis Island Center. "
In other words, if the indentured worker leaves a job for any reason - laid off, fired, got sick, got pregnant, quit even for safety reasons or because of employer harassment or malfeasance, for ANY reason, the worker will have 6 weeks to find a new master or he/she and family will have to leave.
And of course with this brazenly corrupt (see: the giveaways to big business) yet charmingly bigoted bunch, there's an English language requirement.
"...Visa holders will be required to study English, take an English proficiency class, and pass an exam to receive their first visa renewal. The government will allow private industry to administer the exam to avoid growing the federal bureaucracy..."
Now, I actually think that it's a good idea to learn the language of any country you move to. Somebody moving to France should learn French; someone moving to the Philippines should learn Tagalog; someone moving here should learn English. It's just smart.
And I think that it is ok to require English proficiency for immigrants to become permanent residents or better yet, to become citizens.
But we're back to allowing private industry to control the safety and future of America's citizens and other residents, when it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporations care only about one thing, profit.
And naturally, the writers of this proposal slipped in some language for 'faith-based' efforts, with funding provided.
Then there's the whole idea of having these "SAFE" workers have the same pay deductions as citizens, but without the benefits.
Harken back to 6th grade social studies class and see if this phrase rings a bell - "Taxation without representation."
I could go on, but by now you are probably asking how I got off on this rant, especially on a proposal that was first unveiled in May. I was checking The Hill's CongressBlog and found an entry from J.D. Hayworth criticizing the plan.
Being a constituent and something of a student of JD's, I immediately assumed that the plan was a brilliant one.
Then I read the plan, and almost puked.
It treats immigrants and their families like chattel.
In a craven sop to Big Business, it's an attempt to further drive down the already shrinking wage of the American worker.
It surrenders responsibility for the safety of the country to for-profit organizations, all in the name of 'smaller government.'
The proposal is garbage.
JD and I may have very different reasons (him - it's not brutal enough; me - it's inhumane) for reaching the same conclusion, but this once, we have.
"Next up on SkyEye Weather, Biff tells us about the Nor'easter approaching the Phoenix area. Get out your mittens and snow shovels everyone!"
LOL. Later!!
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) are proposing a plan for "Securing the Borders and Reforming Immigration Without Amnesty." The official name is The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act.
Under this plan, undocumented immigrants to the U.S. would return to their home countries, and get matched with a corporation looking for workers at an "Ellis Island Center", then apply for a "Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa." If accepted after passing background, criminal and health checks, these "SAFE" workers will have to reapply every two years for up to twelve total years. After that, if eligible, the worker will have to apply for an "X-Change" Visa for 5 more years, and every 5 years after that.
Workers would be able to leave the U.S. at any time and apply for a permanent visa.
Workers' families (spouse, children) could come with the worker if they passed the same checks.
Workers and their families would pay the same taxes (income, SS, Medicare, etc.) but would not be eligible for any government benefits other than those mandated for non-immigrant visa holders.
There are other details, but these are most of the high points.
Where do I start?
How about with a question, like "Are members of Congress subject to random drug testing?" These two definitely should be 'randomly' tested.
Or to be more tactful, were they under a doctor's care when they came up with the brilliant idea that the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. would just up and leave on the chance, only the *chance* mind you, that they might be allowed to return?
As for these "Ellis Island Centers" - they "will be managed by American-owned private employment agencies that open branches (“Ellis Island Centers”) in NAFTA and CAFTA-DR nations." In addition to taking applications and pairing up the foreign workers with their new masters...errr...'employers'...the Centers will be responsible for running the criminal, background and health checks on the workers.
Maybe my memory is a little hazy on this and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the last time we allowed corporations to be responsible for the security of the U.S. they let 19 guys with boxcutters change the course of American history. And ensure a 2nd term for the worst president ever.
The employers that are part of the program will get to fill jobs that they have not been able to fill after advertising "the job opening[s] at a wage that is commensurate with the trade or industry in that locality (but that is not a Davis-Bacon wage requirement)."
That Davis-Bacon exemption means that the employers would not have to offer the jobs at the prevailing wage for the industry and area; they would just call whatever they wanted to pay "reasonable" and go running for cheap labor supplied by the U.S. government when no one jumped at the chance to break their backs for minimum wage and no benefits.
One of the summaries that I read stated that the jobs available would be those that employers could not fill at market wages. Now, I've only taken a couple of introductory economics courses, but it seems to me that means that the offered wages were *below* what the market called for.
The proposal is also a way to get the creation of a national ID card and registry in through the back door.
First, the setup - "...SAFE Visas will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards that contain information about the job... and it will contain personal and biometric information about the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder."
Later, the coup de grace - "...Six years after enactment the nationwide employment eligibility verification system will go into effect for all employees. At that time, employers will be required to verify the legal status of their entire workforce." [Emphasis theirs]
Other nice tidbits in the proposal:
"Upon leaving the employ of a sponsoring employer, a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder will be provided with a 45-day period in which to find a new sponsoring employer through an Ellis Island Center. "
In other words, if the indentured worker leaves a job for any reason - laid off, fired, got sick, got pregnant, quit even for safety reasons or because of employer harassment or malfeasance, for ANY reason, the worker will have 6 weeks to find a new master or he/she and family will have to leave.
And of course with this brazenly corrupt (see: the giveaways to big business) yet charmingly bigoted bunch, there's an English language requirement.
"...Visa holders will be required to study English, take an English proficiency class, and pass an exam to receive their first visa renewal. The government will allow private industry to administer the exam to avoid growing the federal bureaucracy..."
Now, I actually think that it's a good idea to learn the language of any country you move to. Somebody moving to France should learn French; someone moving to the Philippines should learn Tagalog; someone moving here should learn English. It's just smart.
And I think that it is ok to require English proficiency for immigrants to become permanent residents or better yet, to become citizens.
But we're back to allowing private industry to control the safety and future of America's citizens and other residents, when it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporations care only about one thing, profit.
And naturally, the writers of this proposal slipped in some language for 'faith-based' efforts, with funding provided.
Then there's the whole idea of having these "SAFE" workers have the same pay deductions as citizens, but without the benefits.
Harken back to 6th grade social studies class and see if this phrase rings a bell - "Taxation without representation."
I could go on, but by now you are probably asking how I got off on this rant, especially on a proposal that was first unveiled in May. I was checking The Hill's CongressBlog and found an entry from J.D. Hayworth criticizing the plan.
"I believe that there is a consensus for enforcement first. No tricks, no triggers, no overly-complicated compromises. They’re my good friends, but I don’t believe this is the correct remedy. "
Being a constituent and something of a student of JD's, I immediately assumed that the plan was a brilliant one.
Then I read the plan, and almost puked.
It treats immigrants and their families like chattel.
In a craven sop to Big Business, it's an attempt to further drive down the already shrinking wage of the American worker.
It surrenders responsibility for the safety of the country to for-profit organizations, all in the name of 'smaller government.'
The proposal is garbage.
JD and I may have very different reasons (him - it's not brutal enough; me - it's inhumane) for reaching the same conclusion, but this once, we have.
"Next up on SkyEye Weather, Biff tells us about the Nor'easter approaching the Phoenix area. Get out your mittens and snow shovels everyone!"
LOL. Later!!
Summary of Clean Elections candidate debate - LD17
Again, this is a long post, but hopefully it's an easier read that last week's LD8 Forum report.
Caveat: I tried to be thorough in my note-taking, but may have missed something along the way or even made a mistake. I recommend that anyone who is interested in viewing this debate should visit the Clean Elections debates website to view the webcast. It should be up within a day or so.
Any time I editorialize during the report part of this post, I will separate my comments with [brackets].
Sponsored by the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission held a District 17 candidate debate at ASU last night. The forum was moderated by Phil Riske, a reporter for the AZ Capitol Times, and was held in the Carson Ballroom of the Old Main Building on the Tempe campus.
The format of the debate was similar to that of the LD8 forum last week – each candidate gave an opening statement, answered questions in turn from the moderator, answered questions in turn from the audience, and gave a closing statement.
After reading the tedious summary of last week’s LD8 forum (for what it’s worth, it was tedious while I was writing it, too :) ), I’ll do this one differently. Instead of a step-by-step recounting of each moment of the forum, I’ll summarize each candidate’s positions and then add in some details about the occurrences at the event.
My summaries of the candidates’ responses will follow the same order as the questions/issues and will intersperse their opening and closing statements.
From the moderator -
The candidates were first asked for their feelings on lobbyists;
With a Democratic governor and a conservative legislature, what could be done to make the government run more smoothly;
Immigration;
What is the candidate’s commitment to K – 22 education, and to raising the salaries of teachers;
What is the best way to spend funds in a publicly-funded campaign (my clarification: what’s the best way to use Clean Elections money);
From the audience –
Would you vote for a parental consent abortion bill;
Do you support the minimum wage proposition that’s on the ballot in November;
Do you support finding renewable energy sources/fighting global warming;
Ed Ableser:
Lobbyists - Supports ‘citizen lobbyists’ not career lobbyists.
Governor/Legislature conflict – supports Governor Napolitano, observed that some Republicans in the legislature are trying to do what’s best for AZ, but too many are ‘divisive’ and more interested in partisan one-upmanship than in serious legislating.
Immigration – a federal issue that due to a federal failure to do its job has fallen to the states. Strongly supports enforcing current laws, including going after employers of undocumented immigrants.
Education – It’s essential to our economy; advocates a partnership between the state’s universities and community colleges to expand educational opportunity, especially in rural areas.
Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach (pretty much every candidate responded similarly to this one)
Parental Consent bill – No, would not support one. He brought up an incident from his experiences as a school mental health counselor where a 14-year old girl needed help because she had been raped by her father. He observed that such a bill cause the girl to be victimized twice – once when she was raped, once when her attacker had legal control over her choices.
Raising the minimum wage – Strongly supports raising it. Pointed out the pay disparity between U.S. CEOs and the lowest level worker ($139/$1) and that earning the minimum wage puts a family well below the poverty level ($20,144 PL for a family of 4 vs. $10,300, assuming 2000 hour work year).
Renewable energy – Strongly supports searching for renewable energy sources.
Angie Crouse:
Lobbyists – can be indispensable to the uninformed legislator, but as a professional researcher she already knows how to find out the information she needs. Her priority will be listening to constituents.
Governor/Legislature conflict – supports the governor; thinks the process would work more smoothly if the Republicans in the legislature wouldn’t “shove Democrats out of every conversation” such as over the budget; would work to find areas of agreement.
Immigration – The state of Arizona has been “let down” by the federal government; this wouldn’t be the problem that it is if the U.S. Congress and the President did their jobs. Favors enforcement of existing laws, including employer sanctions.
Education – Supports increasing funding for schools; believes our children and college students should be put first.
Clean elections spending – Voter outreach.
Parental consent bill – Would not support one. Government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Period.
Raising the minimum wage – “You bet” she supports it. Sees this as a moral issue, as a pro-family issue.
Renewable energy – Yes, she supports efforts in this area. Wants to know why Arizona isn’t the leader in solar power (didn’t I hear something similar from Harry Mitchell last week? Great minds and all that… J ) and doing more with wind power.
David Schapira:
Lobbyists – notes that legislators can’t be experts on every subject, but there is a line that should not be crossed. Also noted that frustration with the undue influence of lobbyists was a big reason the Clean Elections law was passed.
Governor/Legislature conflict – Thinks the Governor has done a great job and has been the “saving grace” for the state, providing a balance to the Republican legislature.
Immigration – It isn’t economically feasible to “round up” and deport all undocumented immigrants; favors enforcing existing laws, including in the areas of employer sanctions and ID fraud; it’s a federal issue that has been left to the states.
Education – Early education is “crucial”; favors parenting programs; also thinks higher education has been underfunded.
Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach. [Yeah, I know. What a shock. lol ]
Parental Consent bill – No. Period.
Raising the minimum wage – Yes. Observes that Arizona is one of the few states without its own minimum wage.
Renewable energy – Thinks the legislature has failed in this area; realizes that many people are leery of anything labeled “alternative” energy due to Jeff Groscost’s alt-fuels giveaway/scam. Thinks that moving to new sources of energy is necessary due to economics (i.e. – gas prices).
Rhett Wilson:
Lobbyists - Doesn't think lobbying is good for our system of government; he mentioned the Abramhoff scandal.
Governor/Legislature conflict - supports the Governor; thinks that the Republicans in the Lege need to sit down with the Governor and try to meet somewhere in the middle [for the good of the state.]
Immigration - Dealing with undocumented immigrants has become the obligation of the states in the absence of the federal government's fulfilling it's duties; urges going after ID fraud.
Education - Supports increasing funding to schools and raising teachers' salaries; also thinks that supporting education is an issue vital to the long-term economic success of Arizona.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.
Parental Consent bill - No. Period.
Raising the minimum wage - Yes. Noted that in a year of the Lege sending a large number of issues to referendum to avoid the Governor, an initiative to help the working class was sent to the ballot to avoid the legislature.
Renewable energy - Yes, he supports working to find other sources of energy and thinks tax credits for research. etc.
Now for the Republicans. This section will be a little shorter than the ones about the Democrats; I wasn't listening as hard to them. That's not an insult, but I'm a Dem and haven't made up my mind yet about who I'm going to vote for in the primary and was focused on digesting their answers. I was hoping that this debate would help, but all 4 Dem candidates are really strong candidates who would make great representatives of D17.
Dale Despain:
Lobbyists - Play an important role in the political process; legislators need to use their expertise, but should listen to citizens as well.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Would work for what's best for Arizona, not best for just the legislature or best for just the Governor.
Immigration - We can't wait for the federal government to do its job; secure the border now; we need to address the issue of people already here, perhaps with an ID card.
Education - Noted that teachers are doing well in spite of the issues that have been brought up by other candidates; supports more money for education; considers it an investment in Arizona's future.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.
Parental Consent bill - Yes, "without hesitation". "Government should never take the place of parents."
Raising the minimum wage - No, because it's not fair to employers.
Renewable energy - Yes, but in a reasonable way; no mandated uses.
Dan Gransinger:
Lobbyists - They're a resource, but listen to citizens first.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Governor Napolitano should "keep her word" when she makes deals with the lege.
Immigration - Wants to increase manpower on the border, with the additional people focused on enforcement, not administrative support. Wants a fence along the border, employer sanctions, and to take away benefits from undocument immigrants.
Education - Blames the Governor for the state's high dropout rate; supports increasing salaries along with school choice.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. The only difference here with the others is that Dan mentioned 'travel expenses' from travelling the district where the other candidates spoke mostly about signs and postage and such. Not a big difference there.
Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support one. Wondered why teens can't get a tattoo or piercing without parental permission but can get an abortion.
Raising the minimum wage - No. Cited a study from Cornell U. that said the raising the minimum wage was bad.
Renewable energy - Yes, he supports private research in this area, perhaps with some partnerships with ASU.
Laura Knaperek:
Lobbyists - Lobbyists are a resource, a tool, for legislators.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Thinks that in spite of the conflicts and what was in the news, the Lege and the Governor dealt with a number of complex issues this past session. Feels that the Governor is a demanding person but that's (mostly) good. Thinks that there are a handful, but not a majority, of legislators interested in partisan bickering.
Immigration - "The legislature did a great job addressing a multitude of issues" but blames the Governor for vetoing many of their proposals. Wants increased use of border radar and stretches of fence.
Education - "We are trying to do a better job" in spite of the problems; wants more education choices and options.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. [Thank God I only have to type that one more time. :) ]
Parental Consent bill - Yes. Parents should know about their child's life.
Raising the minimum wage - The state of Arizona already complies with the federal minimum wage and raising it would hurt small businesses.
Renewable energy - Yes, and says this is not a partisan issue. Calls for tax credits for LNG (liquid natural gas) and solar power use/research.
Chris Derose:
Lobbyists - Makes a distinction between 'hired gun' lobbyists and issue-oriented [read: citizen] lobbyists.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Doesn't support Governor Napolitano but will respect Arizona's voters if they choose to reelect her; hopes that the lege and the Governor will work together; decries "government by press release."
Immigration - Secure the border with radar; hire and empower local police and DAs to go after illegal immigration.
Education - Public education is very important; it's a "gateway" issue.
Clean Elections spending - [Stop me if you've heard this before...] Voter outreach. [Whew!]
Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support it. Advised that people shouldn't be "fooled by red herrings," referencing Ed Ableser's answer on this.
Raising the minimum wage - No. Thinks the federal government should raise it and that raising it unilaterally would make Arizona less competitive; believes that the interests of business are of primary importance in this area.
Renewable energy - took some of his time on this question to comment on David Schapira's minimum wage answer (DS talked about his family's small business and its employees) and compare David to Jack Kennedy (JFK knew the Depression had hit when his father laid off 10 of his employees.) David responded in his closing statement, basically saying that Chris could compare him to JFK any time he wants. [Everybody laughed at that comeback.]
Notes and observations about the forum (this is all editorializing, so I'm not going to bother with brackets):
The Democratic candidates really are a strong group (as I noted earlier in this post.) They are all hard-working, dedicated, intelligent and insightful. That means some tough choices for the primary, but no matter who wins in the primary, we are going to have great candidates for the general election.
The Republican party should be complimented. They found not one, but two (two!) candidates that make Laura Knaperek look moderate and reasonable. Of course, if you ignore her words and examine her voting record, you realize that she's just as much a hard-line ideologue has her more vocally extreme colleagues.
Disappointments include the fact that only one of the eight candidates, Ed Ableser, mentioned Scottsdale by name, in a way that acknowledged that part of Scottsdale is in D17. Even the one candidate from the south Scottsdale portion of the district (Dan Gransinger) didn't do that.
Also disappointing was Dan Gransinger. Positions aside for a moment (I would never vote for him), he just seems to have the least depth as a candidate. Of all of the candidates, he seemed to be the least 'district-oriented' and the most 'party talking points-oriented'. And that's saying something with Laura Knaperek sitting next to him.
As you can see from the report above, if going into the debate you didn't know which candidates were affiliated with which party, you would soon figure it out. (See the abortion and minimum wage answers.) All of the candidates presented themselves and their positions fairly well.
If there is a debate for the general election, it should be interesting. While everyone was basically on their best behavior for this one, the candidates all have the intelligence and energy in support of their positions to make for a lively exchange of ideas in a more partisan debate. And they have the wit to deliver some good one-liners too.
"Lively exchange of ideas"? LOL, I love euphemisms. If the sponsors of such a hypothetical debate allowed, the debate would rock!
The campaigns for the general should be fun. :)
Other notes - At the beginning of the debate there was a technical issue with Laura Knaperek's microphone. It was picking up the broadcast of a nearby A.M. radio station. The consensus in my part of the room was that it helped her by masking what she had to say, LOL. There was a brief break after the second question to fix the issue.
Also, the moderator mispronounced Dan Gransinger's name all night. It was sort of annoying after a while.
Also, I have linked the candidates' websites to the summaries of their positions, except for Laura Knaperek and Chris DeRose. I could not find campaign websites for them, but I did link to Laura's bio page from the legislature. If anyone has links to their campaign sites, please leave them in a comment and I'll be happy to update this post.
Thanks for your patience everyone!
Caveat: I tried to be thorough in my note-taking, but may have missed something along the way or even made a mistake. I recommend that anyone who is interested in viewing this debate should visit the Clean Elections debates website to view the webcast. It should be up within a day or so.
Any time I editorialize during the report part of this post, I will separate my comments with [brackets].
Sponsored by the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission held a District 17 candidate debate at ASU last night. The forum was moderated by Phil Riske, a reporter for the AZ Capitol Times, and was held in the Carson Ballroom of the Old Main Building on the Tempe campus.
The format of the debate was similar to that of the LD8 forum last week – each candidate gave an opening statement, answered questions in turn from the moderator, answered questions in turn from the audience, and gave a closing statement.
After reading the tedious summary of last week’s LD8 forum (for what it’s worth, it was tedious while I was writing it, too :) ), I’ll do this one differently. Instead of a step-by-step recounting of each moment of the forum, I’ll summarize each candidate’s positions and then add in some details about the occurrences at the event.
My summaries of the candidates’ responses will follow the same order as the questions/issues and will intersperse their opening and closing statements.
From the moderator -
The candidates were first asked for their feelings on lobbyists;
With a Democratic governor and a conservative legislature, what could be done to make the government run more smoothly;
Immigration;
What is the candidate’s commitment to K – 22 education, and to raising the salaries of teachers;
What is the best way to spend funds in a publicly-funded campaign (my clarification: what’s the best way to use Clean Elections money);
From the audience –
Would you vote for a parental consent abortion bill;
Do you support the minimum wage proposition that’s on the ballot in November;
Do you support finding renewable energy sources/fighting global warming;
Ed Ableser:
Lobbyists - Supports ‘citizen lobbyists’ not career lobbyists.
Governor/Legislature conflict – supports Governor Napolitano, observed that some Republicans in the legislature are trying to do what’s best for AZ, but too many are ‘divisive’ and more interested in partisan one-upmanship than in serious legislating.
Immigration – a federal issue that due to a federal failure to do its job has fallen to the states. Strongly supports enforcing current laws, including going after employers of undocumented immigrants.
Education – It’s essential to our economy; advocates a partnership between the state’s universities and community colleges to expand educational opportunity, especially in rural areas.
Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach (pretty much every candidate responded similarly to this one)
Parental Consent bill – No, would not support one. He brought up an incident from his experiences as a school mental health counselor where a 14-year old girl needed help because she had been raped by her father. He observed that such a bill cause the girl to be victimized twice – once when she was raped, once when her attacker had legal control over her choices.
Raising the minimum wage – Strongly supports raising it. Pointed out the pay disparity between U.S. CEOs and the lowest level worker ($139/$1) and that earning the minimum wage puts a family well below the poverty level ($20,144 PL for a family of 4 vs. $10,300, assuming 2000 hour work year).
Renewable energy – Strongly supports searching for renewable energy sources.
Angie Crouse:
Lobbyists – can be indispensable to the uninformed legislator, but as a professional researcher she already knows how to find out the information she needs. Her priority will be listening to constituents.
Governor/Legislature conflict – supports the governor; thinks the process would work more smoothly if the Republicans in the legislature wouldn’t “shove Democrats out of every conversation” such as over the budget; would work to find areas of agreement.
Immigration – The state of Arizona has been “let down” by the federal government; this wouldn’t be the problem that it is if the U.S. Congress and the President did their jobs. Favors enforcement of existing laws, including employer sanctions.
Education – Supports increasing funding for schools; believes our children and college students should be put first.
Clean elections spending – Voter outreach.
Parental consent bill – Would not support one. Government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Period.
Raising the minimum wage – “You bet” she supports it. Sees this as a moral issue, as a pro-family issue.
Renewable energy – Yes, she supports efforts in this area. Wants to know why Arizona isn’t the leader in solar power (didn’t I hear something similar from Harry Mitchell last week? Great minds and all that… J ) and doing more with wind power.
David Schapira:
Lobbyists – notes that legislators can’t be experts on every subject, but there is a line that should not be crossed. Also noted that frustration with the undue influence of lobbyists was a big reason the Clean Elections law was passed.
Governor/Legislature conflict – Thinks the Governor has done a great job and has been the “saving grace” for the state, providing a balance to the Republican legislature.
Immigration – It isn’t economically feasible to “round up” and deport all undocumented immigrants; favors enforcing existing laws, including in the areas of employer sanctions and ID fraud; it’s a federal issue that has been left to the states.
Education – Early education is “crucial”; favors parenting programs; also thinks higher education has been underfunded.
Clean Elections spending – Voter outreach. [Yeah, I know. What a shock. lol ]
Parental Consent bill – No. Period.
Raising the minimum wage – Yes. Observes that Arizona is one of the few states without its own minimum wage.
Renewable energy – Thinks the legislature has failed in this area; realizes that many people are leery of anything labeled “alternative” energy due to Jeff Groscost’s alt-fuels giveaway/scam. Thinks that moving to new sources of energy is necessary due to economics (i.e. – gas prices).
Rhett Wilson:
Lobbyists - Doesn't think lobbying is good for our system of government; he mentioned the Abramhoff scandal.
Governor/Legislature conflict - supports the Governor; thinks that the Republicans in the Lege need to sit down with the Governor and try to meet somewhere in the middle [for the good of the state.]
Immigration - Dealing with undocumented immigrants has become the obligation of the states in the absence of the federal government's fulfilling it's duties; urges going after ID fraud.
Education - Supports increasing funding to schools and raising teachers' salaries; also thinks that supporting education is an issue vital to the long-term economic success of Arizona.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.
Parental Consent bill - No. Period.
Raising the minimum wage - Yes. Noted that in a year of the Lege sending a large number of issues to referendum to avoid the Governor, an initiative to help the working class was sent to the ballot to avoid the legislature.
Renewable energy - Yes, he supports working to find other sources of energy and thinks tax credits for research. etc.
Now for the Republicans. This section will be a little shorter than the ones about the Democrats; I wasn't listening as hard to them. That's not an insult, but I'm a Dem and haven't made up my mind yet about who I'm going to vote for in the primary and was focused on digesting their answers. I was hoping that this debate would help, but all 4 Dem candidates are really strong candidates who would make great representatives of D17.
Dale Despain:
Lobbyists - Play an important role in the political process; legislators need to use their expertise, but should listen to citizens as well.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Would work for what's best for Arizona, not best for just the legislature or best for just the Governor.
Immigration - We can't wait for the federal government to do its job; secure the border now; we need to address the issue of people already here, perhaps with an ID card.
Education - Noted that teachers are doing well in spite of the issues that have been brought up by other candidates; supports more money for education; considers it an investment in Arizona's future.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach.
Parental Consent bill - Yes, "without hesitation". "Government should never take the place of parents."
Raising the minimum wage - No, because it's not fair to employers.
Renewable energy - Yes, but in a reasonable way; no mandated uses.
Dan Gransinger:
Lobbyists - They're a resource, but listen to citizens first.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Governor Napolitano should "keep her word" when she makes deals with the lege.
Immigration - Wants to increase manpower on the border, with the additional people focused on enforcement, not administrative support. Wants a fence along the border, employer sanctions, and to take away benefits from undocument immigrants.
Education - Blames the Governor for the state's high dropout rate; supports increasing salaries along with school choice.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. The only difference here with the others is that Dan mentioned 'travel expenses' from travelling the district where the other candidates spoke mostly about signs and postage and such. Not a big difference there.
Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support one. Wondered why teens can't get a tattoo or piercing without parental permission but can get an abortion.
Raising the minimum wage - No. Cited a study from Cornell U. that said the raising the minimum wage was bad.
Renewable energy - Yes, he supports private research in this area, perhaps with some partnerships with ASU.
Laura Knaperek:
Lobbyists - Lobbyists are a resource, a tool, for legislators.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Thinks that in spite of the conflicts and what was in the news, the Lege and the Governor dealt with a number of complex issues this past session. Feels that the Governor is a demanding person but that's (mostly) good. Thinks that there are a handful, but not a majority, of legislators interested in partisan bickering.
Immigration - "The legislature did a great job addressing a multitude of issues" but blames the Governor for vetoing many of their proposals. Wants increased use of border radar and stretches of fence.
Education - "We are trying to do a better job" in spite of the problems; wants more education choices and options.
Clean Elections spending - Voter outreach. [Thank God I only have to type that one more time. :) ]
Parental Consent bill - Yes. Parents should know about their child's life.
Raising the minimum wage - The state of Arizona already complies with the federal minimum wage and raising it would hurt small businesses.
Renewable energy - Yes, and says this is not a partisan issue. Calls for tax credits for LNG (liquid natural gas) and solar power use/research.
Chris Derose:
Lobbyists - Makes a distinction between 'hired gun' lobbyists and issue-oriented [read: citizen] lobbyists.
Governor/Legislature conflict - Doesn't support Governor Napolitano but will respect Arizona's voters if they choose to reelect her; hopes that the lege and the Governor will work together; decries "government by press release."
Immigration - Secure the border with radar; hire and empower local police and DAs to go after illegal immigration.
Education - Public education is very important; it's a "gateway" issue.
Clean Elections spending - [Stop me if you've heard this before...] Voter outreach. [Whew!]
Parental Consent bill - Yes, he would support it. Advised that people shouldn't be "fooled by red herrings," referencing Ed Ableser's answer on this.
Raising the minimum wage - No. Thinks the federal government should raise it and that raising it unilaterally would make Arizona less competitive; believes that the interests of business are of primary importance in this area.
Renewable energy - took some of his time on this question to comment on David Schapira's minimum wage answer (DS talked about his family's small business and its employees) and compare David to Jack Kennedy (JFK knew the Depression had hit when his father laid off 10 of his employees.) David responded in his closing statement, basically saying that Chris could compare him to JFK any time he wants. [Everybody laughed at that comeback.]
Notes and observations about the forum (this is all editorializing, so I'm not going to bother with brackets):
The Democratic candidates really are a strong group (as I noted earlier in this post.) They are all hard-working, dedicated, intelligent and insightful. That means some tough choices for the primary, but no matter who wins in the primary, we are going to have great candidates for the general election.
The Republican party should be complimented. They found not one, but two (two!) candidates that make Laura Knaperek look moderate and reasonable. Of course, if you ignore her words and examine her voting record, you realize that she's just as much a hard-line ideologue has her more vocally extreme colleagues.
Disappointments include the fact that only one of the eight candidates, Ed Ableser, mentioned Scottsdale by name, in a way that acknowledged that part of Scottsdale is in D17. Even the one candidate from the south Scottsdale portion of the district (Dan Gransinger) didn't do that.
Also disappointing was Dan Gransinger. Positions aside for a moment (I would never vote for him), he just seems to have the least depth as a candidate. Of all of the candidates, he seemed to be the least 'district-oriented' and the most 'party talking points-oriented'. And that's saying something with Laura Knaperek sitting next to him.
As you can see from the report above, if going into the debate you didn't know which candidates were affiliated with which party, you would soon figure it out. (See the abortion and minimum wage answers.) All of the candidates presented themselves and their positions fairly well.
If there is a debate for the general election, it should be interesting. While everyone was basically on their best behavior for this one, the candidates all have the intelligence and energy in support of their positions to make for a lively exchange of ideas in a more partisan debate. And they have the wit to deliver some good one-liners too.
"Lively exchange of ideas"? LOL, I love euphemisms. If the sponsors of such a hypothetical debate allowed, the debate would rock!
The campaigns for the general should be fun. :)
Other notes - At the beginning of the debate there was a technical issue with Laura Knaperek's microphone. It was picking up the broadcast of a nearby A.M. radio station. The consensus in my part of the room was that it helped her by masking what she had to say, LOL. There was a brief break after the second question to fix the issue.
Also, the moderator mispronounced Dan Gransinger's name all night. It was sort of annoying after a while.
Also, I have linked the candidates' websites to the summaries of their positions, except for Laura Knaperek and Chris DeRose. I could not find campaign websites for them, but I did link to Laura's bio page from the legislature. If anyone has links to their campaign sites, please leave them in a comment and I'll be happy to update this post.
Thanks for your patience everyone!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Congressman Shadegg (R-AZ3) is busy today
First, Rep. John Shadegg of Phoenix has was on the floor of the House pushing a bill that he introduced, HR2730, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act.
It allows the Department of Energy to invest $20 million per year for 7 years in joint US/Israeli research into alternative (read: non-oil) energy sources. It applies to both private business and academic projects. One of the big selling points of the bill is that it contains a provision for 'recoupment', aka repayment.
During the debate, many Congressfolk cited the rising cost of energy, the commonality of interests with Israel in this area, as Israel imports much of its own energy needs, and how both countries need to curb their dependence on foreign oil.
Rep. Shadegg cited an already existing example of cooperation where an Israeli scientist is working with an AZ company on getting energy from a fast-growing algae.
Personal observation: The cynic in me thinks that this may be the most important part of the debate. I'd like to know what company that is, and what kind of campaign contributions it has made. This may not be a bad bill, per se, but it reeks of pork.
Personal observation 2: The bill also looks like a statement of support for and solidarity with Israel. This may annoy some of the readers of this blog, but I don't have a problem with that. At all.
AZ co-sponsors of the bill: Renzi, Grijalva, Pastor, Franks.
No other AZ congressmen were involved with the House debate.
The bill passed via voice vote.
Next, Congressman Shadegg brought HR5611, Fuel Consumption Education Act, to the floor. He is not a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill, and I don't know enough about House procedures to know why he is the one who brought it to the floor and led the debate.
The bill creates a partnership between the government (in the form of the Secretary of Energy) and industry groups to create an advertising campaign teaching consumers of the measures that they can take to conserve fuel in their cars. It authorizes $10 million to achieve this end.
House members from both sides of the aisle stood to express support for the bill.
The debate was essentially very boring, except for two things:
1. Rep. Shadegg cited the rolling blackouts in California in 2000, and the education campaign to reduced power demand that was used then.
I was a little surprised that the CA energy crisis/fraud initiated by Enron would be cited to support anything having to do with proper energy resource management.
2. Also interesting in the atmosphere of bipartisan backslapping over this bill was Congressman Ed Markey's (D-MA) criticism of the bill. He noted that the Energy Department already provides all of the conservation info that would be covered in the campaign. He said that the Republicans' "Energy Week" should be renamed "Energy Weak".
My take: He's right. The bill in itself is not "bad", just woefully inadequate and wastefully redundant.
The bill passed via voice vote.
The bills were fast-tracked to the floor under suspension of the rules, and, well, they really look like bills that were passed so the sponsors could campaign on the bills, not because they will make good laws.
Later!
It allows the Department of Energy to invest $20 million per year for 7 years in joint US/Israeli research into alternative (read: non-oil) energy sources. It applies to both private business and academic projects. One of the big selling points of the bill is that it contains a provision for 'recoupment', aka repayment.
During the debate, many Congressfolk cited the rising cost of energy, the commonality of interests with Israel in this area, as Israel imports much of its own energy needs, and how both countries need to curb their dependence on foreign oil.
Rep. Shadegg cited an already existing example of cooperation where an Israeli scientist is working with an AZ company on getting energy from a fast-growing algae.
Personal observation: The cynic in me thinks that this may be the most important part of the debate. I'd like to know what company that is, and what kind of campaign contributions it has made. This may not be a bad bill, per se, but it reeks of pork.
Personal observation 2: The bill also looks like a statement of support for and solidarity with Israel. This may annoy some of the readers of this blog, but I don't have a problem with that. At all.
AZ co-sponsors of the bill: Renzi, Grijalva, Pastor, Franks.
No other AZ congressmen were involved with the House debate.
The bill passed via voice vote.
Next, Congressman Shadegg brought HR5611, Fuel Consumption Education Act, to the floor. He is not a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill, and I don't know enough about House procedures to know why he is the one who brought it to the floor and led the debate.
The bill creates a partnership between the government (in the form of the Secretary of Energy) and industry groups to create an advertising campaign teaching consumers of the measures that they can take to conserve fuel in their cars. It authorizes $10 million to achieve this end.
House members from both sides of the aisle stood to express support for the bill.
The debate was essentially very boring, except for two things:
1. Rep. Shadegg cited the rolling blackouts in California in 2000, and the education campaign to reduced power demand that was used then.
I was a little surprised that the CA energy crisis/fraud initiated by Enron would be cited to support anything having to do with proper energy resource management.
2. Also interesting in the atmosphere of bipartisan backslapping over this bill was Congressman Ed Markey's (D-MA) criticism of the bill. He noted that the Energy Department already provides all of the conservation info that would be covered in the campaign. He said that the Republicans' "Energy Week" should be renamed "Energy Weak".
My take: He's right. The bill in itself is not "bad", just woefully inadequate and wastefully redundant.
The bill passed via voice vote.
The bills were fast-tracked to the floor under suspension of the rules, and, well, they really look like bills that were passed so the sponsors could campaign on the bills, not because they will make good laws.
Later!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Clean Elections Debate for LD17 on Wednesday, July 26th
The AZ Citizens Clean Elections Commission will be holding a debate tomorrow (OK, probably 'today' as you read this :) ) in the Carson Ballroom of the Old Main Building at ASU between 6 and 8 p.m. (Lousy map here. The Old Main Building is cut off, but it is in the upper right corner of the map area.)
All D17 candidates who are running as Clean Elections candidates should be there; in D17 that means all of them, both Democrats and Republicans.
It's open to the public and should be very informative; arrive early and get a good seat.
If you can't make it, the Clean Elections website has a banner scrolling across the top of its main page announcing that you can "Watch your candidate debate" there, but there's no details how. Check out the website tomorrow if you are interested.
I'll be there to write it up, so I hope to see you there!
G'night!
All D17 candidates who are running as Clean Elections candidates should be there; in D17 that means all of them, both Democrats and Republicans.
It's open to the public and should be very informative; arrive early and get a good seat.
If you can't make it, the Clean Elections website has a banner scrolling across the top of its main page announcing that you can "Watch your candidate debate" there, but there's no details how. Check out the website tomorrow if you are interested.
I'll be there to write it up, so I hope to see you there!
G'night!
If it's Tuesday, it must be "Point out JD's warts" day
The Lofty Donkey talks about "playing 6 Degrees to JD Hayworth" and only having one degree between JD and Adolph Hitler...
EJ Montini writes about the same subject, though a little more tactfully...
Tedski at R-cubed joined in the chorus on the same subject...and had a great quote, concerning JD's response to a Jewish News of Greater Phoenix editorial on this -
The Word From Arizona's Fifth District calls JD's latest press release "lame"...
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire observed yesterday that the anti- [Jack] Abramhoff backlash will "prove a factor in three to six races" including JD's...
Blog For Arizona points out some of JD's ethical issues...
Edit to add:
Lefty Latino joined in the fun, comparing the anti-semitism of JD's hero Henry Ford to JD's own anti-immigrant/anti-Latino leanings...
I pointed out his lack of regard for the truth in a post earlier today...
But have no fear JD, for help is on the way. In the form of lots of money from the national GOP. From The Hill:
For what it's worth JD, we're here to help. We're trying to make this the LAST reelection campaign you are going to face.
Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress. It's time to have a decent man represent CD5.
And, in a win-win situation, bringing JD and his hot air back to AZ should give the state a big boost in the race to overtake new wind power generation leader Texas. To think, our votes could not only alleviate the corruption crisis in Washington, it could help fill Arizona's clean energy needs at the same time.
EJ Montini writes about the same subject, though a little more tactfully...
Tedski at R-cubed joined in the chorus on the same subject...and had a great quote, concerning JD's response to a Jewish News of Greater Phoenix editorial on this -
"By the way, instead of apologizing, or even clarifying his views on Ford, Hayworth chose to accuse the writers of the Jewish News article of a political hack job. Typical J. D."
The Word From Arizona's Fifth District calls JD's latest press release "lame"...
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire observed yesterday that the anti- [Jack] Abramhoff backlash will "prove a factor in three to six races" including JD's...
Blog For Arizona points out some of JD's ethical issues...
Edit to add:
Lefty Latino joined in the fun, comparing the anti-semitism of JD's hero Henry Ford to JD's own anti-immigrant/anti-Latino leanings...
I pointed out his lack of regard for the truth in a post earlier today...
But have no fear JD, for help is on the way. In the form of lots of money from the national GOP. From The Hill:
Three Republican House candidates from New York and special-election victor Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) were among the 10 recipients of fundraising aid at the fourth and final installment of the GOP’s Retain Our Majority Program (ROMP) last week.
The event Thursday, hosted by Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), unofficially raised $982,000, a Republican aide with knowledge of the fundraiser said.
{snip}
The other beneficiaries were Minnesota open-seat candidate Michele Bachmann; Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.)...
{snip}
Hayworth faces his first tough reelection campaign in years, against former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell.
For what it's worth JD, we're here to help. We're trying to make this the LAST reelection campaign you are going to face.
Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress. It's time to have a decent man represent CD5.
And, in a win-win situation, bringing JD and his hot air back to AZ should give the state a big boost in the race to overtake new wind power generation leader Texas. To think, our votes could not only alleviate the corruption crisis in Washington, it could help fill Arizona's clean energy needs at the same time.
Hayworth campaign doesn't let the truth get in the way
...of a press release.
Thanks to Tim at The Word From Arizona's Fifth District for the heads-up on this...
It's nice to know someone reads this blog, and even nicer to be cited as a source...but it would be nicer still if those who cite me do so accurately.
Last week, I wrote a post about Harry Mitchell's appearance at the LD8 candidates' forum. During that forum, he stated that he supports a universal health plan. That was it.
So imagine my shock to read a press release from the Hayworth camp, citing this blog as a source, that morphed a simple sentence into a screed linking Harry Mitchell to Hillary Clinton and a healthcare reform initiative from the 1990s.
I must have dozed off during that part of the forum, because I never heard any of the candidates mention Senator Clinton's name, not even once.
Note: I didn't doze off.
As far as I can see, the Hayworth campaign's press release isn't an outright lie - JD only used my quote that Harry supports "a universal health care plan". The rest of the release, however, falsely extrapolates from that quote in implying but never specifically stating that Harry Mitchell directly endorsed a particular plan.
Must have been a slow day in the office for Hayworth spokesman Todd Sommers. Either that, or he's taking a creative writing class and he emailed a class assignment as a press release.
For clarification, Harry Mitchell's positions on healthcare, excerpted from his website:
Compare this to JD,
...who opposed medical coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families.
...who opposes stem cell research. (The bill passed, but was vetoed. He voted to uphold the veto.)
...who voted to limit medical malpractice awards.
...who supports abolishing Medicare. (see: his membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus and their position statement of December 8, 2000.)
What is the basis for JD's positions on healthcare? Why is he so stridently opposed to healthcare for all Americans?
For JD, on this issue, as well as many other issues, the bottom line is 'the bottom line'.
In just the past quarter, ending June 30th, the Hayworth for Congress campaign received over $55,000 from healthcare-related PACs.
$55,000.
That number is from a viewing of the quarterly filing from the FEC's website. It includes contributions from industry PACs, medical association PACs, and health insurance PACs. It does not include money from insurance PACs that aren't specifically health insurance-related, nor does it include personal contributions from employees, executives and officers of healthcare-related businesses and organizations.
Note: that's actually a 2, not 3, month total. I found 40 contributions that were applicable to this total; all but 2 were dated in May or June.
The bottom line for us, the voters of CD5: JD'$ vi$ion for the American healthcare system is the 'American healthCorp$ Don'tcare' system.
Unsolicited advice for the Hayworth campaign: Harry Mitchell can win the election by campaigning on issues...by campaigning on facts...by campaigning on his own record and his own positions.
JD, it seems obvious that you know that, given your campaign's rapid departure from issues, from truth, from your own record.
One other piece of unsolicited advice for the Hayworth campaign: If you are going to quote me for your purposes, that's fine. This is a public blog, and you are free to quote me whenever you wish. However, every time that you misquote me or twist the facts using my quote I will gleefully take the opportunity to hoist you on your own petard.
Here's a link for you to use after the November election.
P.S. - A question for JD's mouthpiece, Todd Sommers. Does your boss know that you paraphrase his opponent's positions as his own? (emphasis to follow is mine)
In your own press release - ""Health care decisions should be made by doctors, patients, and families, not the government," said J.D. Hayworth for Congress spokesman Todd Sommers."
From Harry Mitchell's website - "Medical decisions, both reproductive and otherwise, should be made between families and their doctors - it is not the role of government to interfere with these decisions."
LOL.
Later!!
Thanks to Tim at The Word From Arizona's Fifth District for the heads-up on this...
It's nice to know someone reads this blog, and even nicer to be cited as a source...but it would be nicer still if those who cite me do so accurately.
Last week, I wrote a post about Harry Mitchell's appearance at the LD8 candidates' forum. During that forum, he stated that he supports a universal health plan. That was it.
So imagine my shock to read a press release from the Hayworth camp, citing this blog as a source, that morphed a simple sentence into a screed linking Harry Mitchell to Hillary Clinton and a healthcare reform initiative from the 1990s.
I must have dozed off during that part of the forum, because I never heard any of the candidates mention Senator Clinton's name, not even once.
Note: I didn't doze off.
As far as I can see, the Hayworth campaign's press release isn't an outright lie - JD only used my quote that Harry supports "a universal health care plan". The rest of the release, however, falsely extrapolates from that quote in implying but never specifically stating that Harry Mitchell directly endorsed a particular plan.
Must have been a slow day in the office for Hayworth spokesman Todd Sommers. Either that, or he's taking a creative writing class and he emailed a class assignment as a press release.
For clarification, Harry Mitchell's positions on healthcare, excerpted from his website:
Also from the website:Promote Women's Health
I believe that every woman should have access to comprehensive health care. This includes access to family planning and fundamental medical care, such as breast and cervical cancer screening.
I also believe that every person has a fundamental right to choose when and whether to have children, and I support a woman's right to choose. Medical decisions, both reproductive and otherwise, should be made between families and their doctors - it is not the role of government to interfere with these decisions.
It is important that we work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States. This can be done by supporting medically-accurate sex education for our kids, taking steps to prevent teen pregnancy, and providing access to pre-natal care for all women.
It is also important that we help countries around the world do the same thing. That's why I do not support the "global gag rule," which cuts funding for family planning providers in developing countries.
I'll work to honor America's veterans, and I will support the passage of a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. This Bill of Rights
Improves veterans' health care and meets the health care needs of returning soldiers,
Improves mental health care for returning soldiers,
Stops increases in prescription drug co-payments and enrollment fees for veterans,
Reduces waiting times on disability claims and expands outreach to veterans,
Compare this to JD,
...who opposed medical coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families.
...who opposes stem cell research. (The bill passed, but was vetoed. He voted to uphold the veto.)
...who voted to limit medical malpractice awards.
...who supports abolishing Medicare. (see: his membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus and their position statement of December 8, 2000.)
What is the basis for JD's positions on healthcare? Why is he so stridently opposed to healthcare for all Americans?
For JD, on this issue, as well as many other issues, the bottom line is 'the bottom line'.
In just the past quarter, ending June 30th, the Hayworth for Congress campaign received over $55,000 from healthcare-related PACs.
$55,000.
That number is from a viewing of the quarterly filing from the FEC's website. It includes contributions from industry PACs, medical association PACs, and health insurance PACs. It does not include money from insurance PACs that aren't specifically health insurance-related, nor does it include personal contributions from employees, executives and officers of healthcare-related businesses and organizations.
Note: that's actually a 2, not 3, month total. I found 40 contributions that were applicable to this total; all but 2 were dated in May or June.
The bottom line for us, the voters of CD5: JD'$ vi$ion for the American healthcare system is the 'American healthCorp$ Don'tcare' system.
Unsolicited advice for the Hayworth campaign: Harry Mitchell can win the election by campaigning on issues...by campaigning on facts...by campaigning on his own record and his own positions.
JD, it seems obvious that you know that, given your campaign's rapid departure from issues, from truth, from your own record.
One other piece of unsolicited advice for the Hayworth campaign: If you are going to quote me for your purposes, that's fine. This is a public blog, and you are free to quote me whenever you wish. However, every time that you misquote me or twist the facts using my quote I will gleefully take the opportunity to hoist you on your own petard.
Here's a link for you to use after the November election.
P.S. - A question for JD's mouthpiece, Todd Sommers. Does your boss know that you paraphrase his opponent's positions as his own? (emphasis to follow is mine)
In your own press release - ""Health care decisions should be made by doctors, patients, and families, not the government," said J.D. Hayworth for Congress spokesman Todd Sommers."
From Harry Mitchell's website - "Medical decisions, both reproductive and otherwise, should be made between families and their doctors - it is not the role of government to interfere with these decisions."
LOL.
Later!!
Friday, July 21, 2006
Harry Mitchell at the LD8 Forum
He lead off the forum with his opening statement. He went over his distinguished career as a public servant, covering his 28 years spent teaching in Tempe, years on the Tempe City Council or as Mayor and terms in the State Senate.
After recounting his ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds and political positions, and some of the benefits of that ability - a revitalized Tempe and balanced state budgets, he called out the need for a change in direction in Washington.
He went on to support a "strong, safe, secure border" including a guest worker program.
When he was asked the question about "working across the aisle," he reminded the audience of his history of doing just that, and observed that while sometimes it isn't easy to find, with strong effort, an area of common good can be found, and worked with.
Regarding the question about which environmental issues are most important to him, Harry said that air quality is the top issue with him. He noted that it makes a "horrible impression" on visitors when you can see the air. [Personal note: residents don't think much of it, either.] Citing the national security benefits as well as the environmental one, he will also be a strong advocate for energy independence, saying that "Arizona should be the Saudi Arabia of solar energy."
On education, Harry is a staunch supporter of public education [OK, that's not a surprise from someone who taught in one for nearly 3 decades. :) ] He called for the federal government to actually pay for some of their mandates. He called 'No Child Left Behind' a good idea, but because it isn't funded, it's causing havoc with Arizona's schools.
His best quote on this, the one that best summarizes his position here, is that it's "easy to be 'for education' at the federal level when you don't pay for it" and that the proof of a Congressman's real support (for education) is in his vote to fund it.
On to the audience questions...
When asked about handling the personal attacks that seem to be an integral part of campaigning these days, Harry noted that he probably has the meanest opponent, which earned a round of knowing laughter followed by applause from the audience. He continued, saying that the best course of action would be for him (and Democrats in general) to not "sit back and take it any more." This statement brought a loud round of cheers from everyone in attendance.
On same-sex marriage - the current debate is a "smokescreen" and it should be left to the states.
On helping Governor Napolitano - Harry urged everyone to support Democratic candidates to uphold the Governor's veto power. In response to Republicans' criticism of the number of vetos by the Governor, he thought it was a sign of the balance in the AZ state house, comparing it against the lack of balance at the federal level, He cited the news of the day (stem cell bill and veto), drawing forth a round of boos for the President's sole veto.
On the question about what he would say to Speaker Hastert at the border (my question!! Yes!!): He would say we don't need more politicians coming to visit the border. We need actual action. (Crowd cheers here, loudly.) He went on to note that JD Hayworth, like many in Washington these days, is "all rhetoric and no results."
On healthcare - He supports a universal health plan. He stated that one of the biggest obstacles to reform is the tendency of Washington insiders protecting their friends, citing the example of Medicare Part D being barred from negotiating the best drug prices that it can. A ban that greatly aids the profit margins of big campaign contributors Big Pharma.
Time was running short, so Harry closed with another call for a change in direction in Washington, congratulated the other candidates on a job well done, and thanked everyone for attending.
Personal observations: While all of the candidates were well-received, the audience saved its biggest pops for Harry Mitchell, which wasn't really a surprise.
I'm looking forward to the LD17 Candidate Forums next week. I won't be able to make it to the one on Monday in the Tempe City Council Chambers, sponsored by the East Valley Tribune, but should be at the Clean Elections forum at ASU on Wednesday. That one will include both candidates from both the Democratic and Republican slates.
On edit: As far as I can tell, both forums next week will feature the candidates of both parties; the way I originally wrote it, I seem to say that only the one on Wednesday will. Mea culpa.
End edit.
Later!!
After recounting his ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds and political positions, and some of the benefits of that ability - a revitalized Tempe and balanced state budgets, he called out the need for a change in direction in Washington.
He went on to support a "strong, safe, secure border" including a guest worker program.
When he was asked the question about "working across the aisle," he reminded the audience of his history of doing just that, and observed that while sometimes it isn't easy to find, with strong effort, an area of common good can be found, and worked with.
Regarding the question about which environmental issues are most important to him, Harry said that air quality is the top issue with him. He noted that it makes a "horrible impression" on visitors when you can see the air. [Personal note: residents don't think much of it, either.] Citing the national security benefits as well as the environmental one, he will also be a strong advocate for energy independence, saying that "Arizona should be the Saudi Arabia of solar energy."
On education, Harry is a staunch supporter of public education [OK, that's not a surprise from someone who taught in one for nearly 3 decades. :) ] He called for the federal government to actually pay for some of their mandates. He called 'No Child Left Behind' a good idea, but because it isn't funded, it's causing havoc with Arizona's schools.
His best quote on this, the one that best summarizes his position here, is that it's "easy to be 'for education' at the federal level when you don't pay for it" and that the proof of a Congressman's real support (for education) is in his vote to fund it.
On to the audience questions...
When asked about handling the personal attacks that seem to be an integral part of campaigning these days, Harry noted that he probably has the meanest opponent, which earned a round of knowing laughter followed by applause from the audience. He continued, saying that the best course of action would be for him (and Democrats in general) to not "sit back and take it any more." This statement brought a loud round of cheers from everyone in attendance.
On same-sex marriage - the current debate is a "smokescreen" and it should be left to the states.
On helping Governor Napolitano - Harry urged everyone to support Democratic candidates to uphold the Governor's veto power. In response to Republicans' criticism of the number of vetos by the Governor, he thought it was a sign of the balance in the AZ state house, comparing it against the lack of balance at the federal level, He cited the news of the day (stem cell bill and veto), drawing forth a round of boos for the President's sole veto.
On the question about what he would say to Speaker Hastert at the border (my question!! Yes!!): He would say we don't need more politicians coming to visit the border. We need actual action. (Crowd cheers here, loudly.) He went on to note that JD Hayworth, like many in Washington these days, is "all rhetoric and no results."
On healthcare - He supports a universal health plan. He stated that one of the biggest obstacles to reform is the tendency of Washington insiders protecting their friends, citing the example of Medicare Part D being barred from negotiating the best drug prices that it can. A ban that greatly aids the profit margins of big campaign contributors Big Pharma.
Time was running short, so Harry closed with another call for a change in direction in Washington, congratulated the other candidates on a job well done, and thanked everyone for attending.
Personal observations: While all of the candidates were well-received, the audience saved its biggest pops for Harry Mitchell, which wasn't really a surprise.
I'm looking forward to the LD17 Candidate Forums next week. I won't be able to make it to the one on Monday in the Tempe City Council Chambers, sponsored by the East Valley Tribune, but should be at the Clean Elections forum at ASU on Wednesday. That one will include both candidates from both the Democratic and Republican slates.
On edit: As far as I can tell, both forums next week will feature the candidates of both parties; the way I originally wrote it, I seem to say that only the one on Wednesday will. Mea culpa.
End edit.
Later!!
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Summary of LD8 Candidate Forum
There's a lot of material to cover here, so I am breaking up my post - this post will cover the three LD8 candidates; the next one will cover Harry Mitchell. In fact, it's so long that if you are not interested in LD8, you may want to just skim it.
The forum opened with an acknowledgement of two candidates that were not part of the forum, Susan Fuchs, who is running for Justice of the Peace for the McDowell Mountain District, and Rano Singh, Democratic candidate for AZ State Treasurer. She was represented by Fletcher Fowler, who was collecting Clean Elections $5s for her.
Under the format for the forum, the candidates would give an opening statement, then answer a series of questions posed by the moderator, and then respond to audience questions, before giving a brief closing statement.
In his opening statement, State Senate candidate Dan Oseran told us he is a native Arizonan, born in Tucson. He is a graduate of U of A (boo! hiss! :) ) Law School and MBA program and used to work for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. He currently works for a small high tech business and is an adjunct professor at the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe.
He stated that his biggest issue (no surprise here) is crime. His experience in the County Attorney's office included time fighting fraud and identity theft in this, the county with the most identity theft in the nation. He stressed that he doesn't support just punishment, but crime prevention.
He also supports creating a student loan forgiveness program for Arizona students attending public universities who pursue a career in the public sector. He cited the fact that he had to leave the County Attorney's office to earn enough money to pay off his own student loans.
Noting that education levels in a state and that state's economic development are interrelated, he called for a legislature with the long-term vision to make the investments now in education to ensure future growth of the state.
State Representative candidate Stephanie Rimmer briefly went over her bio as a small business owner, wife and mother of 4 (see her website for more info) before launching into her opening. She spoke of the great quality of life in Arizona, but observed that not everyone in AZ has a chance to experience that quality of life. She would work to expand the benefits of AZ life to more residents.
Her big issue is the environment. She cited that the legislature handled 1400 bills this session, but did nothing to lower vehicle emissions or improve air quality. Her observation that many things are reversible (underfunding schools, bad laws, etc.) but damage to the environment frequently is not reversible.
Lastly, if elected, she would be a strong advocate for schools in the state.
State Rep candidate Bill Sandberg let us know that his motivation for running was very personal. He was the caregiver for his mom while she suffered from Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In early 2004, his mom's condition deteriorated so much that she could not stand on her own any more, so the adult day care center she went to while he worked would not accept her any longer. He took a leave of absence from his jobs to stay with her full time. During that LOA, he was spotted walking with his mom by one of the customers at one of his jobs. Within days, she had organized a group of women to help with his mom so he could return to work.
That lasted until his mom passed away in October of 2004.
Now he wants to repay them by working for the greater good, and that's why he's running for the lege.
After the candidates gave their opening statements, the moderator asked 3 questions, and the candidates were allowed to answer them in turn.
The first question concerned the partisan, poisonous atmospheres in the legislature and Congress. The moderator asked how the candidates would work 'across the aisle' to craft and pass legislation.
Candidate Rimmer cited how her candidacy is already something of an example of this - in addition to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independents have supported her. She also noted that one of her best skills, and one of the skills most needed to form a consensus, is the ability to listen.
Candidate Oseran started by saying that in the legislature it is "time for policies, not politics." He will use his training and skills as a mediator (from his time in the County Attorney's Office) to build bridges and to remind his colleagues that the legislature is "not a zero-sum game."
Candidate Sandberg admitted that he didn't know exactly how he will reach across the aisle but stated that in his career, particularly in the construction industry, he has worked with diverse personalities and capabilities and is used to bringing them together to complete the project at hand.
The second question concerned the environment. The candidates were asked which environmental issues interested them the most.
Bill Sandberg - Water quality and state trust land. He favors passage of Prop 106 in November and wants to close the loophole in AZ law that allows the lege to borrow from the state land trust for the budget.
Dan Oseran - Air and water quality. He told the audience how he was an ecology co-major in college, and that his senior thesis was on the quality of water in a river (I forget which, and didn't jot it down, but it's back east. Sorry!) He was also part of the Environmental Law Society in law school. He advocates for preserving the quality of the environment because it attracts new business, residents, and tourism.
Stephanie Rimmer - Advocates working to change/improve auto fuel and emissions. She wonders why fossil fuels are still used so much. She also expressed her surprise that when she moved here from Washington years ago, that we (AZ) didn't have any on the recycling activities that she was used to.
The third question asked the candidates how they thought that investment in education would benefit Arizona.
Stephanie Rimmer - "Put Harry in every school." That reference to the 'flag in every classroom' law from this last session of the lege got a good pop from the crowd, and a smile from Harry and the other candidates.
Her position is that improving education is vital, particularly for Arizona to become a biotech research hub. She cited as one of the biggest, or perhaps the biggest, impediment to that starts in our high schools, which have a 65% graduation rate. In addition, many of those who do graduate need remedial classes at the next level before they move into the main curriculum of their chosen college.
She closed with a statement that earned another good pop from the crowd. "Elect a new Superintendent of Public Instruction."
Bill Sandberg - Advocated expanding our community colleges, including allowing them to award 4 year degrees and giving them some help acquiring ever more expensive land for expansion. He also called for expanding pre-K and K programs, perhaps to include some pre-K tutoring and/or the creation of educational childcare centers.
Dan Oseran - Reminded the audience that he is an adjunct professor in Tempe and then went on to state that top tier universities are needed to attract business. If elected, he would advocate for a holistic approach to improving education in Arizona, starting from K through college.
He also thought that it was a shame that Maricopa County, one of the largest in the country, had only one high school ranked in the top 1200 (Chaparral H.S.).
Next up was the period for questions from the audience. I may have some of these out of order, because my notes were getting messy as I tried to keep up (if I keep doing this, it may be time to invest in a recorder).
The first question was on how the candidates would handle some of the personal attacks that are sure to come as the election draws closer.
Sandberg - Would rely on his sense of obligation to those who don't have a voice to see him through.
Rimmer - Would draw upon her desire to see that her children have a good community live and grow up in.
Oseran - Would use facts against personal attacks. He'd get the truth out there.
The next question concerned the candidates' positions on same-sex marriage.
Oseran - considers it a smokescreen issue and an area that the government should not interfere in.
Sandberg - opposes same-sex marriage and favors a constitutional amendment (state and/or U.S.) banning it.
Rimmer - not an area that government should be involved in.
The third audience question asked how the candidates would help Governor Napolitano.
Rimmer - she would work to support women's issues and uphold the Governor's veto. She specifically cited a bill creating a waiting period for abortions passed this last session that the Governor vetoed. Even though she (candidate Rimmer) is a staunch Catholic, she supports a woman right to choose.
Sandberg - Applauded the Governor's Aging 2020 initiative. Also stated that he is pro-choice.
Oseran - "Thank goodness for the Governor." (lots of applause there) Also stated that he would work to uphold the Governor's veto.
The next question (Mine!!! whooo hooo!!!) was asked of Harry Mitchell specifically, but the positions of the other candidates were welcome also.
Harry was advised of the impending visit of Speaker Hastert of the U.S. House and was asked that if he could speak to the Speaker, what would he say Arizona needs.
{Harry's answer will be in the post concerning him}
Sandberg - Supports more National Guard troops on the border, and doing more than supporting the Border Patrol. He advocates having the NG apprehend and detain undocumented immigrants. He doesn't support a wall across the border, though a 'wall of troops' might be good.
Oseran - Thinks illegal immigration is a federal problem that the states have been left to deal with, and called it a 'market-driven' issue (market for cheap labor) and the market forces should be addressed.
Rimmer - Would tell Speaker Hastert to "Stop the baloney" and wants some Department of Homeland Security money to assist in securing the border.
The next audience member asked how the candidates would address healthcare costs.
Oseran - noted that 20% of Arizona residents have no health insurance and that the percentage of AZ's children that are uncovered make us one of the worst states in that regard. He would work to correct that. Supports creating a state health plan.
Sandberg - Observed that AZ's emergency rooms are graded at D+, 43rd nationally and wants to address that. He wants to work to raise the pay of nurses and supports creating a state health plan. He also suggested impact fees on developers targeted to help ERs keep up with growth.
Rimmer - "Overcome fear" (of change, maybe? This wasn't clear to me, but I was getting tired by now) then overcome the health insurance industry to rein in costs.
Closings were brief.
Sandberg - Would focus on aging Arizonans, and stated that, regarding the immigration issue, that the Mexican government needs to shape up and take care of its own citizens.
Rimmer - Quoted Bill Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid."
Oseran - The election is "our chance to make a difference."
Personal observations of the candidates:
Bill Sandberg - the least polished of the candidates, both in stating his positions and in his public speaking skills. I didn't agree with all of his positions, but he earned some honesty points tonight. He took some positions that probably weren't universally supported by the audience (see: same-sex marriage) but he was up front about it.
Dan Oseran - the most polished. His courtroom experience was visible. He was very comfortable being in a room where the audience was focused on him. He spoke well, and even the few 'non-answer' answers that he gave were solid. IMO, he's got some long-term potential. I could see him running for higher office after a term or two in the lege. Of course, if he still has student loans to pay, he'll have to. :))
Stephanie Rimmer - polished, just not quite to the extent that Dan Oseran is. Her presentation of her opening statement was spoken very quickly, a common rookie mistake, but she was very comfortable during the question part of the program. She was also very good at playing off of the other candidates.
Overall, while the candidates bring different strengths and perspectives to the table, they all came across as sincere in their desires to improve the district and the state.
Also, I should commend the LD8 Dems for doing a good job with the forum, and for such a great audience turnout. District Chair Margaret Hogan, 1st Vice-Chair Bob Freund, and the rest of the leadership and volunteers deserve a pat on the back.
To any readers who have lasted through this entire post: Thank you for your patience. This was a lot longer and more work than I thought it would be, and I appreciate your patience.
I'll write the post about Harry Mitchell tomorrow. Writing just this has taken longer the actual forum, lol.
Good night!
The forum opened with an acknowledgement of two candidates that were not part of the forum, Susan Fuchs, who is running for Justice of the Peace for the McDowell Mountain District, and Rano Singh, Democratic candidate for AZ State Treasurer. She was represented by Fletcher Fowler, who was collecting Clean Elections $5s for her.
Under the format for the forum, the candidates would give an opening statement, then answer a series of questions posed by the moderator, and then respond to audience questions, before giving a brief closing statement.
In his opening statement, State Senate candidate Dan Oseran told us he is a native Arizonan, born in Tucson. He is a graduate of U of A (boo! hiss! :) ) Law School and MBA program and used to work for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. He currently works for a small high tech business and is an adjunct professor at the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe.
He stated that his biggest issue (no surprise here) is crime. His experience in the County Attorney's office included time fighting fraud and identity theft in this, the county with the most identity theft in the nation. He stressed that he doesn't support just punishment, but crime prevention.
He also supports creating a student loan forgiveness program for Arizona students attending public universities who pursue a career in the public sector. He cited the fact that he had to leave the County Attorney's office to earn enough money to pay off his own student loans.
Noting that education levels in a state and that state's economic development are interrelated, he called for a legislature with the long-term vision to make the investments now in education to ensure future growth of the state.
State Representative candidate Stephanie Rimmer briefly went over her bio as a small business owner, wife and mother of 4 (see her website for more info) before launching into her opening. She spoke of the great quality of life in Arizona, but observed that not everyone in AZ has a chance to experience that quality of life. She would work to expand the benefits of AZ life to more residents.
Her big issue is the environment. She cited that the legislature handled 1400 bills this session, but did nothing to lower vehicle emissions or improve air quality. Her observation that many things are reversible (underfunding schools, bad laws, etc.) but damage to the environment frequently is not reversible.
Lastly, if elected, she would be a strong advocate for schools in the state.
State Rep candidate Bill Sandberg let us know that his motivation for running was very personal. He was the caregiver for his mom while she suffered from Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In early 2004, his mom's condition deteriorated so much that she could not stand on her own any more, so the adult day care center she went to while he worked would not accept her any longer. He took a leave of absence from his jobs to stay with her full time. During that LOA, he was spotted walking with his mom by one of the customers at one of his jobs. Within days, she had organized a group of women to help with his mom so he could return to work.
That lasted until his mom passed away in October of 2004.
Now he wants to repay them by working for the greater good, and that's why he's running for the lege.
After the candidates gave their opening statements, the moderator asked 3 questions, and the candidates were allowed to answer them in turn.
The first question concerned the partisan, poisonous atmospheres in the legislature and Congress. The moderator asked how the candidates would work 'across the aisle' to craft and pass legislation.
Candidate Rimmer cited how her candidacy is already something of an example of this - in addition to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independents have supported her. She also noted that one of her best skills, and one of the skills most needed to form a consensus, is the ability to listen.
Candidate Oseran started by saying that in the legislature it is "time for policies, not politics." He will use his training and skills as a mediator (from his time in the County Attorney's Office) to build bridges and to remind his colleagues that the legislature is "not a zero-sum game."
Candidate Sandberg admitted that he didn't know exactly how he will reach across the aisle but stated that in his career, particularly in the construction industry, he has worked with diverse personalities and capabilities and is used to bringing them together to complete the project at hand.
The second question concerned the environment. The candidates were asked which environmental issues interested them the most.
Bill Sandberg - Water quality and state trust land. He favors passage of Prop 106 in November and wants to close the loophole in AZ law that allows the lege to borrow from the state land trust for the budget.
Dan Oseran - Air and water quality. He told the audience how he was an ecology co-major in college, and that his senior thesis was on the quality of water in a river (I forget which, and didn't jot it down, but it's back east. Sorry!) He was also part of the Environmental Law Society in law school. He advocates for preserving the quality of the environment because it attracts new business, residents, and tourism.
Stephanie Rimmer - Advocates working to change/improve auto fuel and emissions. She wonders why fossil fuels are still used so much. She also expressed her surprise that when she moved here from Washington years ago, that we (AZ) didn't have any on the recycling activities that she was used to.
The third question asked the candidates how they thought that investment in education would benefit Arizona.
Stephanie Rimmer - "Put Harry in every school." That reference to the 'flag in every classroom' law from this last session of the lege got a good pop from the crowd, and a smile from Harry and the other candidates.
Her position is that improving education is vital, particularly for Arizona to become a biotech research hub. She cited as one of the biggest, or perhaps the biggest, impediment to that starts in our high schools, which have a 65% graduation rate. In addition, many of those who do graduate need remedial classes at the next level before they move into the main curriculum of their chosen college.
She closed with a statement that earned another good pop from the crowd. "Elect a new Superintendent of Public Instruction."
Bill Sandberg - Advocated expanding our community colleges, including allowing them to award 4 year degrees and giving them some help acquiring ever more expensive land for expansion. He also called for expanding pre-K and K programs, perhaps to include some pre-K tutoring and/or the creation of educational childcare centers.
Dan Oseran - Reminded the audience that he is an adjunct professor in Tempe and then went on to state that top tier universities are needed to attract business. If elected, he would advocate for a holistic approach to improving education in Arizona, starting from K through college.
He also thought that it was a shame that Maricopa County, one of the largest in the country, had only one high school ranked in the top 1200 (Chaparral H.S.).
Next up was the period for questions from the audience. I may have some of these out of order, because my notes were getting messy as I tried to keep up (if I keep doing this, it may be time to invest in a recorder).
The first question was on how the candidates would handle some of the personal attacks that are sure to come as the election draws closer.
Sandberg - Would rely on his sense of obligation to those who don't have a voice to see him through.
Rimmer - Would draw upon her desire to see that her children have a good community live and grow up in.
Oseran - Would use facts against personal attacks. He'd get the truth out there.
The next question concerned the candidates' positions on same-sex marriage.
Oseran - considers it a smokescreen issue and an area that the government should not interfere in.
Sandberg - opposes same-sex marriage and favors a constitutional amendment (state and/or U.S.) banning it.
Rimmer - not an area that government should be involved in.
The third audience question asked how the candidates would help Governor Napolitano.
Rimmer - she would work to support women's issues and uphold the Governor's veto. She specifically cited a bill creating a waiting period for abortions passed this last session that the Governor vetoed. Even though she (candidate Rimmer) is a staunch Catholic, she supports a woman right to choose.
Sandberg - Applauded the Governor's Aging 2020 initiative. Also stated that he is pro-choice.
Oseran - "Thank goodness for the Governor." (lots of applause there) Also stated that he would work to uphold the Governor's veto.
The next question (Mine!!! whooo hooo!!!) was asked of Harry Mitchell specifically, but the positions of the other candidates were welcome also.
Harry was advised of the impending visit of Speaker Hastert of the U.S. House and was asked that if he could speak to the Speaker, what would he say Arizona needs.
{Harry's answer will be in the post concerning him}
Sandberg - Supports more National Guard troops on the border, and doing more than supporting the Border Patrol. He advocates having the NG apprehend and detain undocumented immigrants. He doesn't support a wall across the border, though a 'wall of troops' might be good.
Oseran - Thinks illegal immigration is a federal problem that the states have been left to deal with, and called it a 'market-driven' issue (market for cheap labor) and the market forces should be addressed.
Rimmer - Would tell Speaker Hastert to "Stop the baloney" and wants some Department of Homeland Security money to assist in securing the border.
The next audience member asked how the candidates would address healthcare costs.
Oseran - noted that 20% of Arizona residents have no health insurance and that the percentage of AZ's children that are uncovered make us one of the worst states in that regard. He would work to correct that. Supports creating a state health plan.
Sandberg - Observed that AZ's emergency rooms are graded at D+, 43rd nationally and wants to address that. He wants to work to raise the pay of nurses and supports creating a state health plan. He also suggested impact fees on developers targeted to help ERs keep up with growth.
Rimmer - "Overcome fear" (of change, maybe? This wasn't clear to me, but I was getting tired by now) then overcome the health insurance industry to rein in costs.
Closings were brief.
Sandberg - Would focus on aging Arizonans, and stated that, regarding the immigration issue, that the Mexican government needs to shape up and take care of its own citizens.
Rimmer - Quoted Bill Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid."
Oseran - The election is "our chance to make a difference."
Personal observations of the candidates:
Bill Sandberg - the least polished of the candidates, both in stating his positions and in his public speaking skills. I didn't agree with all of his positions, but he earned some honesty points tonight. He took some positions that probably weren't universally supported by the audience (see: same-sex marriage) but he was up front about it.
Dan Oseran - the most polished. His courtroom experience was visible. He was very comfortable being in a room where the audience was focused on him. He spoke well, and even the few 'non-answer' answers that he gave were solid. IMO, he's got some long-term potential. I could see him running for higher office after a term or two in the lege. Of course, if he still has student loans to pay, he'll have to. :))
Stephanie Rimmer - polished, just not quite to the extent that Dan Oseran is. Her presentation of her opening statement was spoken very quickly, a common rookie mistake, but she was very comfortable during the question part of the program. She was also very good at playing off of the other candidates.
Overall, while the candidates bring different strengths and perspectives to the table, they all came across as sincere in their desires to improve the district and the state.
Also, I should commend the LD8 Dems for doing a good job with the forum, and for such a great audience turnout. District Chair Margaret Hogan, 1st Vice-Chair Bob Freund, and the rest of the leadership and volunteers deserve a pat on the back.
To any readers who have lasted through this entire post: Thank you for your patience. This was a lot longer and more work than I thought it would be, and I appreciate your patience.
I'll write the post about Harry Mitchell tomorrow. Writing just this has taken longer the actual forum, lol.
Good night!
Speaker of the U.S. House to visit AZ this weekend
From the Phoenix Business Journal:
I'm curious as to which ones will photo-op with him (is 'photo-op' even a verb? Ahhh...the power of a blogger to effect change, even over the English language. :) ). I'll also be VERY interested to see which of the CD8 Rep candidates or Rep Governor candidates gets face-time with him.
It probably wouldn't affect how the district or state votes, but his seeming support could boost a candidate's fundraising efforts.
Later!!
On edit: I called JD Hayworth's local office in Scottsdale to ask if he was going to be with the Speaker. The person (male) who answered thought so, but wasn't 100% sure.
After that, I contacted Jim Kolbe's Tucson office and asked the same question. The person who answered there was not sure, but put me on hold to 'ask the scheduler' . Pam Harrington came on the line, and after I repeated the question, she advised that she would get back to me.
Then, I contacted Raul Grijalva's Tucson office also. They weren't aware of the visit this weekend. They thought the border visits in general were going to be next month.
Based on the surprise and uncertainty in the local offices, I'm beginning to wonder if the BizJournal article is accurate.
Anyway, I thought about contacting the other Congressmen from AZ, but it's time to run some errands and go to the LD8 candidate forum.
I'll look into this later....
On edit2:
OK, found another source online. From an AP story on CentreDaily.com (PA):
It seems legit. Anyway, I REALLY have to get going. :))
U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert will be in Arizona and Texas this weekend visiting border areas. Hastert, an Illinois Republican, is scheduled to visit Yuma and Nogales as well as El Paso, Texas.The article doesn't say which, if any, local Congressmen will be there with him.
I'm curious as to which ones will photo-op with him (is 'photo-op' even a verb? Ahhh...the power of a blogger to effect change, even over the English language. :) ). I'll also be VERY interested to see which of the CD8 Rep candidates or Rep Governor candidates gets face-time with him.
It probably wouldn't affect how the district or state votes, but his seeming support could boost a candidate's fundraising efforts.
Later!!
On edit: I called JD Hayworth's local office in Scottsdale to ask if he was going to be with the Speaker. The person (male) who answered thought so, but wasn't 100% sure.
After that, I contacted Jim Kolbe's Tucson office and asked the same question. The person who answered there was not sure, but put me on hold to 'ask the scheduler' . Pam Harrington came on the line, and after I repeated the question, she advised that she would get back to me.
Then, I contacted Raul Grijalva's Tucson office also. They weren't aware of the visit this weekend. They thought the border visits in general were going to be next month.
Based on the surprise and uncertainty in the local offices, I'm beginning to wonder if the BizJournal article is accurate.
Anyway, I thought about contacting the other Congressmen from AZ, but it's time to run some errands and go to the LD8 candidate forum.
I'll look into this later....
On edit2:
OK, found another source online. From an AP story on CentreDaily.com (PA):
Hastert and a handful of lawmakers intend to make stops this weekend in Arizona and Texas, meeting with National Guard troops deployed to assist Border Patrol agents and visiting Camp Grip, which aides described as a remote, desert location and prime area for smugglers. The group also plans a night tour along the border at Nogales, Ariz., and a stop at the Bridge of Americas Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas.
It seems legit. Anyway, I REALLY have to get going. :))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)