I am SO going to miss JD Hayworth.

He's the best cure for writer's block known to man. :))

Things had been quiet for almost a week in the press release war between the Mitchell and Hayworth campaigns. The Mitchell campaign highlighted yesterday's NPR story about CD5 on their website, but it was an even-handed story and they didn't criticize Hayworth in their press release.

Then the Hayworth campaign decided to go after Harry Mitchell for a contribution from Charles Keating 16 or so years ago. They want Harry "to do the right thing by returning the tainted cash." They go on to defend their own candidate's ties to Jack Abramoff by claiming that "Abramoff never visited Congressman Hayworth's office and never held an official meeting with the Congressman" while Keating did meet with Harry.

Guess that means that if the payoffs aren't face-to-face, they don't count, according to JD's rationale, anyway.

They close the main thrust of the press release with some name-calling ("Hypocrite Harry") and a call for Mitchell to "donate his Keating contributions to charity."

The Hayworth campaign has called Mitchell's ethics into question for taking a $2500 contribution from Charlie Keating over a decade and a half ago. Fair enough.

Here are some numbers for the Hayworth campaign to consider:

From Tom Delay's...no, wait for it...the *indicted* Tom Delay's ARMPAC -

3/27/1998 $5000

10/6/1998 3000

9/9/1994 14

10/14/1994 6

10/20/1994 3500

From Jack Abramoff to JD -

6/8/1998 1000

9/30/1996 250

From Abramoff to JD's TEAMPAC -

2/28/1999 1000

From Preston Gates Ellis (Abramoff's firm) to JD -

6/25/1999 1000

3/28/2001 500

From David Safavian (Abramoff associate)...no, wait for it #2...the *convicted* David Safavian to JD -

5/13/1998 783

6/8/1998 200

12/23/1999 250

And, just for giggles - from Enron Corp PAC to JD -

3/31/1998 500

8/11/1999 1000

11/5/2001 1000

Numbers courtesy fec.gov and tray.com.

That's a total of just over $19,000 that I was able to find without trying hard. That's a lot more money than the $2500 that they accuse Mitchell of accepting, and a lot more current, too.

That's just from donors that have been indicted or convicted, or in the case of Enron, operated by people that were indicted or convicted. It doesn't include money from clients or from spouses or aides, unless those aides were themselves indicted or convicted. It also doesn't include money funnelled through Native American tribes and other Abramoff clients. If it did, the total would be well in excess of $100,000.

JD has supposedly donated the contributions that went directly from Jack Abramoff to charity, but that still puts him over $14,000 ahead of Harry.

JD's not talking about that, though.

The campaign press release does talk about a demand. It demands that Harry issue an apology.

JD's good at that.

Not at apologizing. Oh no, not our JD.

Demanding that others apologize, that is.

I did a quick Google search (parameters "Hayworth apology") and found that he's demanded...

...that President Bush apologize to the Minutemen for referring to them as "vigilantes"...

...that the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. apologize for saying something nice about Yasser Arafat...

...that former President Clinton's Press Secretary Joe Lockhart should apologize and resign for offending the Southern Baptist Convention...

Couldn't find a reference to an apology that he's issued, though.

Must be nice to be perfect when no one else is.

Note: if someone has a link to an apology issued by Congressman Hayworth for his own behavior or words, send it to me and I'll be happy to update this post.

In the final paragraph of the press release, the Hayworth campaign accuses Harry Mitchell and his campaign of trying to "smear Congressman Hayworth's reputation."

I have news for him, and them.

JD didn't need any help in that area - his own corruption, bigotry, and hypocrisy have smeared his reputation beyond repair.

Academic Bill of Rights in Arizona

or: Why we NEED to send more Democrats to the legislature.

From the Tucson Citizen (though it has been all over - it's on the AP wire):

Conservative state lawmakers are targeting what they see as left-leaning university professors, pushing bills designed to ensure that students are not unduly influenced by professors' beliefs.

{snip}

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, plans to introduce an "Academic Bill of Rights" next year designed to keep liberal bias out of the classroom.

DailyKos has the story, too.

The "Academic Bill of Rights" or ABOR for short, is the brainchild of uber-conservative David Horowitz. He's been floating this around for a while, as Mr. Horowitz has tried to push it on public university and college administrators with little success. Now, he is taking his attack on free thought to state legislatures (which are always fertile grounds for academic repression.)

Horowitz is very open about his goal with this. ABOR is targeted at silencing all liberals in the academic world. He claims that ABOR would help academia "intellectual diversity and [foster] true intellectual dialogue" but the language of the ABOR proposals that legislators like Pearce are proposing would only stifle the open exchange of ideas.

ABOR has innocuous-sounding parts, like

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

Doesn't sound too bad; he even has a clause that says

Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.

Sounds good so far, right? Sounds fine, even unexpectedly reasonable, until you listen to the legislators that are leading this alleged 'defense of academic freedom."

From the Citizen:

"University professors lean liberal and not conservative," said Sen. Linda Gray, R-Phoenix, chairwoman of the Senate's Higher Education Committee. "They contribute to society accepting immoral behavior.

From the Republic:

Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe, who heads two higher-education committees, said the bill to be proposed here next year will be based on Horowitz's version.

"I have heard more and more over the years that there is less and less tolerance for conservative opinions," she said.

ABOR isn't the only legislative attack on academic freedom, only the current one.

Also from the Rep:

[Thayer]Verschoor [R-Gilbert] sponsored a bill that would have allowed university and community college students to refuse any assignment that depicts or describes sexual activity in a "patently offensive way." The Senate defeated it 17-12. Public debate led the Board of Regents to pass its resolution.

Also, the lege introduced "a bill enabling students to refuse assignments they find sexually offensive." The bill failed, but the AZ Board of Regents passed a weakened resolution that was substantially similar.

Add in the lege's bill, signed by into law by Governor Napolitano, that requires all public classrooms in the state to display U.S. flag and Constitution (which sounds harmless, until the rest of their efforts are considered), and you have an all out effort by Republicans to end the tradition of academic freedom in public education and replace it with ideological indoctrination.

Note that I keep using the word "public"; as with many of the proposals forwarded by the Republicans, the private sector, particularly religiously-affiliated institutions, is exempt.

As noted in the stories, Sen. Gray and Rep. Knaperek chair the education committees of their respective chambers. Sen. Verschoor is a member of the Senate Education Committee. Rep. Pearce isn't a member of an education committee.

He's just chair of the House Appropriation$ Committee.

Let's recap -

Gray: "They [liberals] contribute to society accepting immoral behavior."

Knaperek: "I have heard more and more over the years that there is less and less tolerance for conservative opinions."

"State Rep. Russell Pearce...is exploring legislation that would require colleges that received Arizona tax dollars to mandate their students take American history before receiving a diploma." (AZRep)

My responses:

To Senator Gray: What's immoral? Sons of prominent state senators molesting multiple children and and getting the harsh[that's sarcasm folks] sentence of 30 days? Incumbent Congressmen idolizing a rabid anti-Semite? And profiting from it? A U.S. President openly ignoring the Constitution?

I'm a liberal (by AZ standards, anyway) and can definitely say that we think all of the above is immoral and don't accept any of that. When you (all conservatives) act 'morally' (whatever that may mean) at all times, or at least call out your own as quickly and loudly as you call out "liberals", then....who am I trying to kid? It'll never happen.

To Representative Knaperek: What 'less tolerance'? I've been taking classes for a few years at SCC (almost done - whoooo hooooo!) and have never seen or heard of conservative opinions getting suppressed. In fact, the opinions that I have heard in my classes have been respectfully heard, whether they were 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Also, in the case of instructors, I haven't been able to even guess the political leanings of most; of the ones that I could, the split was even. The liberals were in English and Psychology, the conservatives in Physics and Accounting.

Not a shocking breakdown there.

Of those, the only one that tried to push his views on the class was the conservative Physics prof, who ranted about Bill Clinton not funding a particle accelerator. The only problem with that, as I and a couple of other students pointed out, is that we were >4 years into the Bush administration.

To Representative Pearce: After the unfunded U.S. History mandate joins the unfunded flag/Constitution one, what next? A required course on the base criminal nature of immigrants?

The challengers -

Martin Monroe is running against Linda Gray in the LD10 Senate race. No website, but he can be contacted here. He believes that fully funding education is vital to Arizona's future. (From the Clean Elections Candidate guide.) "Arizona should set goals to be among the best public educational systems in the nation." (From his 2006 AZRep candidate questionnaire.)

Edit to add info, per comment:

Glenn Ray (Note: his questionnaire lists www.glennray.com as his website, but upon navigating there I'm redirected to arzray2006.com. I linked his name to that one.) is running against Thayer Verschoor for the LD22 Senate seat. He considers education to be one of the areas that is vital to Arizona's future, one that state government should focus on. (from his AZ Republic candidate questionnaire)

Tammie Pursley is running against Russell Pearce in LD18. She is a career public educator both at the junior high and community college levels.

In LD17, these candidates are running against Laura Knaperek (all info from their websites):

Angie Crouse - is a highly educated, degreed researcher who wants to invest in Arizona education, not destroy it. As someone who worked her way through college, she understand the needs of the majority of students. [These days, most students *have* to work to try to keep their post-college debt to a manageable level.]

Ed Ableser - has taught at ASU and is currently a mental health counselor for the public school system [in Tempe, I think, but I'm not sure.] He also wants to invest in AZ public education, and "eliminate frivolous regulations."

David Schapira - is a former teacher in Tempe whose campaign's focus is on improving education in the state. One of his initiatives will be to reduce the bureaucracy, from both the legislature and Department of Education, weighing down the school systems.

Rhett Wilson - has worked as an advocate for the Maricopa Community College system and is currently working as Coordinator of Undergraduate Internships and Recruitment at the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. He strongly advocates more funding for higher education, both to improve the quality of our state universities and colleges, and to help keep tuition affordable.

The professional/education qualifications of the incumbents, Larry, Moe, and Curly....errr...."Senator Gray and Representatives Knaperek and Pearce"?

Gray - lists her occupation as "note-reader Scopist"; the only references to that I could find via Google were in the court reporting field. Based on the bio on her lege webpage, even though she touts herself "as one of the Legislature’s foremost experts on education," she was never a professional educator.

Knaperek - lists her occupation as "Independent Consultant." Again, her bio doesn't have anything that suggests that she was ever a professional educator.

Pearce - no current occupation listed. Former Maricopa County Deputy Sheriff. Nothing in his bio suggests that he was ever in any profession but law enforcement.

To sum up:

The Republican Education Plan: Deceptive Dissembling, Overt Lies, Shameless Fraud, Mindless Indoctrination.

The Democratic Education Plan: Elect serious people with serious solutions, including fully funding and supporting public education, K - College.

Protect Arizona's Future - Elect Democrats.

Note: I was planning a post more specific to LD17, the Democratic candidates, and Laura Knaperek, but when I realized how unqualified these 3 'leaders' (Gray, Knaperek, and Pearce) are, both ideologically (they're dedicated to undermining public education in Arizona) and professionally (not even one was a professional educator), I thought this post was more appropriate to the subject matter.

Thanks for your patience in reading this.

Have a good night!

Quick roundup for Tuesday, August 15

...The minimum wage initiative was certified by the AZ Secretary of State and will appear on the ballot in November (AZ Capitol Times)...

...USVP Dick Cheney is in AZ to help the embattled AZGOP with its fundraising efforts...uses his remarks to strongly support the war in Iraq and Joe Lieberman in CT. What a shock. Really. :) ...

...The AZ State Court of Appeals has ruled that email messages composed by public officials on publicly-owned computers are not subject to AZ's public disclosure laws. AZ Republic expected to appeal the decision to AZ Supreme Court...

...Senator John McCain is stumping in Iowa...

...NPR has a very good piece on the Mitchell/Hayworth race in CD5...

...On the lighter side (from my perspective, anyway :) ), Jeff Flake is visiting tuna canneries in American Samoa (KVOA). Can't wait to read his "How I spent my summer vacation" press release on this one. It'll be interesting how the king of the anti-pork movement ties a trip to Samoa to his district (which is where Congressmen are supposed to be this month.)...

...Yesterday, the AZ Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for Frank Roque. A few days after September 11, 2001, Mr. Roque killed an immigrant Sikh, Balbir Singh Sodhi, after mistaking him for an Arab.

While I am wholeheartedly opposed to capital punishment, I have to wonder what the court's ruling would have been if an immigrant Sikh (or one from any ethnic group) had killed a citizen...

...Bill Searle has a good column in the Scottsdale Republic on the Democratic candidates in LD8, and on supporting Governor Napolitano...

...The Rep's Plugged In reports that Democratic State Senator Robert Cannell of Yuma is endorsing Jon Kyl for re-election. Sen. Cannell isn't running this time around.

More later....

Why we all have to support Ned Lamont

As a rule, my posts are Arizona-based, or at least Arizona-related, but it's time to make an exception to that rule.

Until today, I didn't really have a fully-formed opinion about the Democratic primary in Connecticut, though because of the whole-hearted support that Joe Lieberman has been receiving from the Republicans in Washington and elsewhere, I was leaning toward Lamont just on general principles.

Then, courtesy of David Sirota on HuffingtonPost.com, I read this article from the JournalInquirer.com from Connecticut. It not only documents the Lieberman campaign's expected attacks on Ned Lamont ("socialist", "atheist") but also documents their attacks on current Congressman and Senate candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Attacking Lamont? Distasteful, but expected during a campaign as hotly-contested as this one is going to be. Lieberman's political career is on the line, and the gloves have been dropped. (That's a hockey reference for you native Arizonans :)) )

Attacking Sanders? Just dumb. Throughout his career in the House and as Mayor of Burlington, Bernie Sanders has done more for his constituents, making their lives just a little more livable, than 10 Joe Liebermans.

Lieberman's attacks will just invite comparisons of his record to Sanders'.

Bad move, Joe.

Sen. Lieberman should fire whichever of his advisors advocated attacking Rep. Sanders.

Actually, he should fire himself for following the advice by dropping out of the race, but that isn't going to happen.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if in the next few days or weeks, Joe makes it official and switches parties, with the Reps nominating him as their official ballot candidate. There's an awful lot of coyness from the Reps in this subject area right now.

For the record: The Sanders/Tarrant race for the Senate in Vermont was the tipping point for me. When Republican Rich Tarrant said he was going to buy the seat (note: say what you want about Jim Pederson's contributions to his own campaign - Tarrant makes Pederson look like a counter worker at Taco Bell), I took a small step from "opinionated but uninvolved" to "ticked-off and active."

I sent a small donation to the Sanders for Senate campaign, started paying much closer attention to Arizona politics and politicians, and began to get involved with the local Democrats in LD17.

I realize that almost everyone who reads this blog is in Arizona, but if, like me, you have friends or family in Connecticut, talk to them. Soon.

Ned Lamont is in for a low-down, no-holds-barred, just plain nasty campaign from Lieberman and the Republicans, and he needs all the support he can get.

Later!!

This says it all....

Gleefully taken from Plugged In....

News Roundup for Friday, August 11

Here and there.....

...From the "This one didn't take too long" category -

The Republicans are already playing the race card in their rush to support Joe Lieberman/undermine Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

From Robert Novak on Human Events Online:

Old-line Connecticut Democrats who backed insurgent candidate Ned Lamont against Sen. Joseph Lieberman were appalled to see their candidate flanked ... by two contentious African-American political activists from out of state.

He was specifically referring to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton.

...Also in the "didn't take too long category", the Republicans are already tying their fundraising efforts to the foiled terror plot in London. They blame an unnamed 'anonymous staffer' for it. Thanks to Desert Beacon (Nevada) for this one.

In a related note, embattled incumbent Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) accused the Democrats of being the ones who have politicized the "War on Terror." [Found through CSPAN's CapitalNews.org.]

"People, particularly those on the left, have seen this as a political football," he [Santorum] argued.

Personal note: I expect the equally embattled JD Hayworth and Jon Kyl to echo his sentiments soon.

On edit: It took just the few hours since I wrote the original post for JD to come through like the ideological trooper that he is and politicize the events in England. He's using it to push his anti-immigrant positions.

From the Wall Street Journal Online, speaking about the conflict between the House's and the Senate's immigration deform proposals:

The foiled plot is "a pointed and potent reminder that security literally begins at our doorstep, at our borders and points of entry," said Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who called the Senate approach "wrong-headed."

The CD8 Republican primary is briefly mentioned in the article.

End edit.

Personal note2: The Reps may be shameless, but at least they can't be accused of inconsistency. They're ALWAYS shameless.

...The Tucson Citizen's editorial board has looked at all 4 of the Rep candidates for governor, and found them all lacking. They have declined to endorse any of them for the primary. Thanks to Dan Nowicki at the AZRepublic's Plugged In for finding this.

...I finally received my ballot for Early Voting. Whooooo hooooo!!

We only have two Democratic races on the ballot here - State Rep for D17 (pick 2 of 4), and Superintendent of Public Instruction (1 of 2).

The Democratic candidates for D17 State Rep (in the order that they are listed on the ballot):

David Schapira
Rhett Wilson
Ed Ableser
Angie Crouse

For Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Jason Williams
Slade Mead

Both Ric Boyer and Mark Manoil are candidates for Corporation Commission, but since 2 candidates advance to the general election, that doesn't qualify as a 'race.'

Also on the ballot, there is a referendum for Scottsdale seeking to uphold or overturn the City Council-passed SOB ordinance.

Yeah, "SOB" is short for "Sexually Oriented Business"; I just like using 'SOB' in the same sentence as 'City Council.' :)

Anyway, time to go fill out my ballot....later!!

Hayworth spokesman doesn't think ethics is an important issue

As quoted in (and from) a Phoenix Business Journal recap of the press release battle between the Mitchell and Hayworth campaigns,

Hayworth spokesman Brian Hummell said the Republican is ready to battle Mitchell on key issues as well as ethics.

"We have tried to keep this race focused on the issue but if Harry Mitchell wants to make this race about ethics, that's fine by us," said Hummell.

Let me give Mr. Hummell a hint -

Ethics is ALWAYSALWAYSALWAYS a key issue.

For every election, every office, every candidate.

To Mr. Hummell - Campaigns are nothing more than extended job interviews, and if we can't trust your candidate to do the job honestly, why should we bother hiring (aka - electing) him?

CD1 and CD8 races now considered closer calls...

Found through Taegan Goddard's Political Wire...

In a bit of a surprise, CQPolitics.com has changed its ratings of the CD1 and CD8 races.

CD1 is now at "Leans Republican" (was "Safe Republican") and CD8 is at "No Clear Favorite" (was "Leans Republican"). They credit Ellen Simon's entry into the CD1 race, and the "deep philosophical rift within the district’s [CD8] Republican Party" for the changes in the ratings.

OK, the change in CD8 wasn't really a surprise, as the Democrats have a strong and active slate of candidates, but while CD1 has some great candidates too, they still have an uphill fight. Steeply uphill.

As near as I can tell, they still have CD5 at "Leans Republican", but I'm not sure. If they do, expect a change to "No Clear Favorite" any day now. Soon to be followed by "Leans Democrat". :))

G'night!

News for Thursday, August 10th...

The Mitchell and Hayworth campaigns continued their war of press releases today.

The Mitchell campaign put a post from Joanie Flatt that was originally on her blog on AZCentral.com on their website.

They also put up one of their own talking about how JD is calling his own Abramoff-related numbers a "lie".

The Hayworth campaign put up the one that said the Mitchell campaign was lying when they quoted JD's own numbers regarding how much money he took from Abramoff's clients.

AZCongressWatch has a good summary of this one....

Lofty Donkey and R-Cubed have been chiming in on JD's ethics (or lack thereof) too....

...Tim at The Word From Arizona's Fifth District has some more bad news for JD...

...While I don't have a pic available, in my travels around CD5 (mostly the southern part), I've noticed a couple of JD's signs with yellow add-on signs (I know there's probably a technical term for it, but don't know what it is) that say "Lower Taxes" and "Balanced Budgets".

ROTFLMAO!!

If he was being honest, they'd say "Lower Taxes...for the Wealthiest Americans" and "Balanced Budgets...by the Democrats."

...In other news, a judge ruled that the Protect Arizona Now anti-same sex/unmarried couples constitutional amendment can stay on the ballot....

...The Arizona Capitol Times is reporting that the Citizens Clean Elections Commission has dismissed a complaint against Len Munsil and is moving forward with an inquiry into one against Governor Napolitano...

...The Capitol Times is also reporting that the AZGOP filed a complaint with the AZ Secretary of State stating that some Democratic candidates did not have 'paid for by' statements on their websites. They want the candidates punished even if the mistake was rectified months ago.

My favorite line from the press release on the website was "consequently, these individuals have violated the aforementioned statue:" (Emphasis mine)

I'm pretty sure that the AZSOS isn't responsible for investigating violations of statues. Maybe the GOP should refer it to whoever handled the "sheep violation" investigation in Mesa a few months back, lol.

Seriously, if you are interested in the list of candidates, visit the AZGOP's press release.

The Reps also make it clear in their letter that this is payback for the Democrats' complaint against Len Munsil (I think it was Munsil, anyway) for the same thing.

...On an issue that isn't AZ-specific, but one that will affect the elections this fall, a new study released today shows that immigrants aren't taking jobs from citizens. Link to the research group's press release here. Thanks to jobsanger in Texas for the heads-up.

...The Phoenix Business Journal reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Republican Steve Huffman for the open Congressional seat in CD8. My reaction - "Yawn." However, I'm sure that if anyone in CD8 actually cares, Tedski at R-Cubed or Stacy at AZCongresswatch will have reports.

...Also in the Business Journal, they have a poll on their website about the Rep candidates for Governor. As I am typing this post, "none of the above" leads Don Goldwater 54% to 23%, with Munsil, Tupper and Harris following at 16%, 3%, and 1%, respectively. It's unscientific, but still, it doesn't say much for the respect that the Rep field is getting from the electorate.

Later!!

Quick D17 Update

According to an email from Dennis Grzelak, Video Production Manager of CityCable11, the municipal cable channel in Scottsdale, the video broadcast of the EV Tribune-sponsored D17 debates will be aired this month.

The announced schedule is:

Democrats on Saturdays at 2, 6, and 9;
Republicans on Sundays at 2, 6, and 9.

As noted in the email, "these meetings could be pre-empted by playbacks of Scottsdale Public meetings."

In the 'giving credit where it's due department' - I've criticized the City of Scottsdale government is this blog before (and expect to do so in the future :) ) but I have to compliment the speedy attention to this by Mr. Grzelak. I emailed him late last month and he took care of this, even with a vacation in the middle, in less than two weeks.

So if you live in Scottsdale, or know someone who does, and are interested in hearing what the D17 candidates have to say, tune in.

In other, non-political, news, I went to the movie 'Talladega Nights". It was a very dumb, very funny movie. But the part that's worthy of a blog mention was during the trailers.

A movie called "Man of the Year" is scheduled for release this fall. It stars Robin Williams as a comedian who runs for President as a joke. And wins. The trailer is hilarious. Robin Williams can still deliver a punch line. The movie also stars Laura Linney, Lewis Black and Christopher Walken.

Hope the movie lives up to the trailer, because it's one movie that I'm going to see.

Later!

I went out and splurged today...

Non-political post ahead...

Season 3 of The Wire is out on DVD today. ($100 on HBO's website, but $65 at Best Buy, and you can probably find even better deals with a little searching.)

It's the best written and best acted show on TV today, any net, any genre.

There aren't many TV shows worth laying down a good book for, but this is one of them.

No more politics or posting today.

Later!!

Mitchell campaign lowlights Hayworth's ethics; Hayworth campaign nips back

On Monday, the Mitchell for Congress campaign issued a press release pointing out the inconsistencies between Congressman Hayworth's answers on his AZ Republic candidate questionnaire and his actual record.

Today, the Hayworth campaign responded with a release of its own.

It raises some interesting points, but I noticed one significant characteristic common to the 'ethical lapses' they attribute to Harry Mitchell.

All were minor, and other than the sign-stealing allegations from 2000, ALL were 12 years old, or older.

The Hayworth campaign split most of its criticism between the signs and a donation to Mitchell from Charlie Keating in the late 1980s.

Is JD saying that Harry Mitchell accepting $2500 from Keating in a mayoral race over 16 years ago is morally equivalent to the tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars that he, JD Hayworth, has taken from Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and their clients and allies since he was elected to office in 1994?

In fact, the only allegation from that period (note: also from before I moved to AZ, so most of this is new info to me) that causes me to pause and question Harry's wisdom was his "swapping prime Phoenix Cardinals' tickets for the use of city parking spaces, which Mitchell himself admitted was a mistake."

Harry, what were you thinking? I wouldn't swap the bag of trash I brought out to the dumpster today for 'prime Cardinals' tickets', much less swap something of value for them. LOL

However, I have met Harry on several occasions, and I am confident that he has learned his lesson. Exhibit A: The Cards now play in Glendale.

[Whooooo hooooo! No more Sunday road closures in Tempe!]

The Hayworth campaign opened its press release with the line "[b]eing lectured on ethics by Harry Mitchell is like being lectured on modesty by Paris Hilton."

I would change that to "being lectured on ethics by JD Hayworth is like being lectured on religious tolerance by Mel Gibson." Actually, that's unfair to Mel - at least he has apologized for his drunken ravings; JD has never apologized for his (presumably) sober ethical misdeeds.

Personal observation (not that this post doesn't already have plenty, lol): Harry Mitchell has been in politics one way or another for close to 4 decades. All the Hayworth campaign has established beyond a doubt is that their candidate has done way more shady things (both in raw quantity and in 'shadiness') in 12 years than Mitchell has in 40. Of course JD and his gang will probably try to spin this as a sign of his 'industriousness' or something else equally insipid.

To the Hayworth campaign: Give it a rest guys. If the race comes down to which candidate is more ethical, your candidate (and you!) will be unemployed come January 1st.

Edit to add: JD will be guest hosting the Laura Ingraham Radio Show on 960 KKNT on Thursday. He was supposed to do so today, also, but I wasn't going to wake up that early (6 a.m.) to listen to him. I would welcome a recap from someone who did. Thanks!

Congrats and criticisms to start the week.

Edited for clarity on 10-Aug-2006...

[This post meanders a bit. Sorry.]

First, congratulations to Governor Napolitano. On Monday (today as you read this) she takes over as Chair of the National Governor's Association. Her elevation to the position (she was Vice-Chair for the last year) is a sign of the bi-partisan esteem and respect that her colleagues hold for her.

I first read about her ascension to the position in a story regarding the NGA's opposition to a clause in the House-approved National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122, sec. 511) that allows the President to federalize National Guard units in the various states "without the consent of the" governors of those states.

Originally, I was going to write a post about how the Republican congressmen of AZ voted to undercut their own Democratic governor in a bit of partisan gamesmanship. However, after performing a bit of due diligence (aka - research), I found that while the 6 Rep congressmen from AZ did vote for the bill, so did Democrat Ed Pastor. Further, I found that the bill passed on May 11, 396 -31, 5 not voting.

Deciding to take a quick look at the bill to determine the root of this bipartisan support, I found a legislative behemoth. Even those Reps that had misgivings about certain sections could probably find something that they really liked.

Also, checking the Congressional Record of the debate, I couldn't find anything that indicated an AZ congressman expressed support for the specific part of the bill that took power away from the Governors and concentrated it in the hands of President Bush. Maybe someone slipped the language into the bill during a committee session, but there was no indication here.

I decided that while I would love to take AZ's congressmen (particularly you-know-who :) ) to task for placing the President's power acquisition schemes above the safety of the state and its residents, it wouldn't be fair to do so without evidence.

[Note: if someone has a link to such evidence, please forward it to me if you aren't going to write about it yourself. I'll be happy to update this post and give credit where it's due. Thanks.]

So, I figured that this would be a "JD-free" weekend (never a bad thing, that :) )

Then I read both the AZ Republic's and the East Valley Trib's Sunday editions.

Now for the criticism.

Both had JD as part of their op/ed pages on the same day.

In the Trib, they had a guest column from JD titled "Israel must win to save the rest of us." [Couldn't find a link online, but I'll check later on to see if one goes up.]

After spending the first couple of paragraphs excoriating Sam Coppersmith for questioning JD's adoration of anti-Semite Henry Ford, JD moves on to calling for the utter destruction of Hezbollah by Israel. Given that I support Israel, it's difficult to criticize him too much for this very simplistic message, but I retch when he writes "[a]s in any war, there have been dreadful mistakes and civilian casualties." He continues by justifying Israel's mistakes because they have apologized for them, while berating Hezbollah's because they haven't.

Dead civilians are dead civilians, whether killed by the "good guys" or the "bad guys." Lives are destroyed, no matter who fires the bullets or launches the rockets. That can never be forgotten.

Hayworth's cavalier dismissal of those deaths is absolutely vile. His column can best be summed up as "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out, and say 'we're sorry' for any incidental civilian deaths."

The column continues in a similar fashion, closing with another jab at Sam Coppersmith.

I can't tell if he's trying to salvage what he can of the Jewish vote, if he truly just likes death and destruction, or if he's trying to get the anti-Semite/pro-Israel Christian rapture vote.

[Note to the Trib: Find a better picture of JD. His current pic has him with a crooked smirk that looks about half a second from a "what me worry?" ear-to-ear special. It's goofy. Lose it.]

Over on the Republic's editorial page, there was an unsigned editorial titled "A failure to communicate" written about the Congressional meetings about illegal immigration (officially, the meetings were about 'securing the vote', protecting it from undocumented aliens. Hmmmmm....so *that's* who's responsible for Florida in 2000. :) )held this week in Yuma and Phoenix.

The usually corporatist right-wing AZRep editorial board surprisingly rips into the way the meetings were conducted. In short, the public meetings were set up to accept no public input.

According to the piece, Reps Pastor, Grijalva, Franks and Hayworth joined Vernon Ehlers at the meeting. The two Dems, Pastor and Grijalva, wanted to solicit public input, but that was nixed by the chair (Ehlers). Nothing in the piece indicates that JD wanted to hear from members of the general public, especially in an unfiltered, uncontrolled atmosphere.

Links to the prepared statements that were submitted for the hearing on August 3rd (Phoenix) are here.

Enough already. Of all the smoke-screen issues that the Reps have tried out this year (see: marriage, same sex; burning, flag; tax, estate) illegal immigration is the only one with legs.

It combines the historical strain of virulent nativism that lies just beneath the veneer of civility in our culture with the simple fact that illegal immigration *is* a substantive issue - it does affect many people, for better and for worse.

Now that the demagogues and hatemongers (JD, anyone?) have successfully fanned the flames, the issue isn't going away any time soon, though apparently they would like us to forget it in favor of their issue of the week.

Too bad the vast majority of the people in the country NEVER had to worry about the estate tax or tried to marry someone of the same gender or tried to burn a flag (other than as prescribed in Title 4 of the US Code, Section 8, paragraph k) in the first place. All of us are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

I think that regardless of where people stand on the issue (and there is a wide spectrum of opinions on this one) most can agree on one thing -

When Congress wants to crawl out from under their rocks and listen to the people most affected by illegal immigration and by the (mostly) crackpot 'plans' to address it, they'll be welcome.

Until then, they should quit wasting our time and money.

Personal note: I'm going to miss JD when he loses in the fall. He provides soooo many subjects for posts. Maybe he'll get a job with Fox News so he can keep spewing his bigoted bile. And I can keep criticizing it.

Of course, since I don't watch Fox News, maybe I'll just have to learn to write about the common sense positions of and reasonable legislation written by Harry Mitchell.

:)

G'night!

All Aboard!! Hayworth helping to bring mass transit to CD5!!

Apparently, JD has been learning some lessons at Jon Kyl's knee, because he is the chief engineer and conductor of his own DoubleTalk Express.

From his AZRepublic Candidate Questionnaire -

On Social Security:

"I do not support the privatization of Social Security. I do, however, think we need to consider giving younger workers the option of investing a small amount of their payroll taxes in certain pre-approved investments, much like the 401(k) plan offered government workers."

Either he opposes privatization or he supports it. This statement, in his very own words, contradicts itself.

Oh, and "pre-approved"? By who, him and his campaign contributors from the finance and insurance business sectors?

He has frequently called for "personalization" of SocSec, adamantly denying that "personalization" is a euphemism for "privatization."

Even when someone, blustery and red-faced, is next to you screaming "flamingo!!", if you see duck feathers, hear duck quacks, and smell duck s__t, you don't have to see the actual duck to know one is near.

On ethics, and questioning House Republican leadership:

"For example, I was strongly displeased with House leadership and strongly critical of them when they tried to change the rules to protect one of their own from ethical scrutiny (I was eventually victorious)."

It's a nice sentiment, really, but given that he voted to weaken ethics rules in 2005 (H Res. 5, vote #6), not strengthen them, it's not really a *true" sentiment. On the other hand, he *was* victorious.

He also say that he thinks that AZ voters "know I will always put them first."

Left unsaid: if they give him enough bribes....errr..."contributions."

On fiscal responsibility:

"Indeed, the tax cuts I helped put into law as a member of the Ways and Means Committee have...resulted in the deficit forecast for this year declining from $423 billion to $296 billion!"

The Clinton Admin handed JD and the rest of the Reps in Congress a $128 billion SURPLUS for FY2001. I'm sure that JD (and the Reps) will cite the ongoing (neverending?) war in Iraq as their excuse for running massive, even record, deficits ever since.

I have to ask - name a Congress that has cut taxes during a war, much less bragged about it.

On Education:

"Education is the key to a brighter future for Arizona’s children."

and -

He is "working on a new legislative initiative to improve student access to higher education by streamlining federal red tape in the student aid system..."

When he talks about "Arizona's children," he must be mean "Arizona's children with well-to-do parents."

He voted for massive cuts to student aid in 2005 (S1932, vote 670); in fact they were the deepest cuts ever.

Of course, to be fair, he could truly believe the best way to reduce "red tape in the student aid system" is to gut the student aid system.

In another part of the questionnaire, though, he was consistent.

On Iraq:

"...while the threat may not have been imminent, it was always inevitable..."

For at least three years he has argued that the invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq may have become a threat to U.S. interests over time.

It's a repugnant rationalization for making 'bullying' the foundation for the nation's foreign policy, but it *is* consistent.

Finally, in his closing paragraph, he observed that "there will be plenty of negative attacks this election season."

That's a completely true statement.

He's already started with them.

Interesting stuff, for someone who just a week ago during the debate on the ESTATE TAX AND EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2006, accused the Democrats of engaging in "Orwellian "newspeak'' " (page H 6194 of the Congressional Record).

[Note: I tried linking directly to the record, but their online search system uses some kind of time indexed system, generates a new URL for each search based on the time, not the material found. In other words, no permalink. Sorry. Go to the search page, select Hayworth, select the 'House' section while deselecting the others, and put in the date 07/28/2006. It should work]

When was it, maybe three weeks ago, that I wrote a post where the title addressed this specific characteristic of JD's? [Note: I checked. It *was* three weeks ago, exactly. :) ]

Anyway, have a great weekend everyone!

News roundup for August 2nd

Some obscure, some not...

...The Hill reports that the DCCC has reserved almost $3.4 million worth of TV time in CD5 and CD8. There's no guarantee that all the time will be purchased, and there can't be any official coordination between the national party and the individual campaigns, but the reservations are strong indicators of the importance of these races.

... (thanks to Desert Beacon for the headsup on this one) The Washington Post has an article on the state of readiness of Army National Guard units. Specifically, "House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure."

The article talks about equipment issues as equipment is abandoned in the field or comes back to the US damaged, and also about personnel issues has returning soldiers decline to re-enlist.

This would be something that I wouldn't normally note here, but Desert Beacon raises a good point about the readiness status of National Guard units and the effect that status has locally.

"Now we sit in the midst of "Fire Season," with 41 active large wildland fires, 7 of which were new on August 2, 2006...."

Add in hurricane season in the southeastern US, as well as the approaching winter, and you have a lot of manpower and hardware that's counted on for disaster relief by the states that's now out of commission or at greatly reduced efficiency.

Got to wonder if the degraded readiness of NG units contributed to the toll of Hurricane Katrina.

...The Business Journal of Phoenix reports a poll that has Governor Napolitano and Senator Kyl with significant leads over their opponents. The Rasmussen Reports poll shows both have leads of 15 - 20%.

...ASU has a press release detailing a field trip that some of its MBA students went on.

Fifty-three students from the W. P. Carey MBA – Executive Program have returned from Washington, D.C., after participating in a unique class...to learn how businesses can participate in the public policy process.

{snip}

...students met with current and former officials from the executive branch and Congress, and interest-group lobbyists...

{snip}

...The executive MBA students also met with U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake and U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl...

A quick check of the Carey School's core courses makes me think that this was part of the coursework for "MGT 591, Business and Public Policy."

In the interests of full disclosure, that course should be renamed "MGT 591, Proffering Bribes...errrr...Campaign Contributions."

OK, a less snarky comment - it's going to be very difficult to clean up government and return to government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when corruption is openly taught as a business practice by our institutions of higher learning. Yeah, I know, "business lobbying" isn't considered a crime, but if John Gotti had contributed to the right politicians, leg-breaking would be a legal credit collection tactic.

...turns out that our beloved Senator Kyl (fyi - that's sarcasm, folks) is getting higher name rec outside of the state and country. Turns out that's not always good, though.

In the book "Wildfire and Americans" by Roger G. Kennedy (Douglas & McIntyre, hardcover, 332 pages, $33.95), the author writes (from The ChronicleHerald of Nova Scotia book review) "After Arizona’s Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002, he writes, U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl and then-Gov. Jane Hull "took turns directing public indignation against scapegoats (while) the real history of the place and the real causes of the fire went unmentioned."

That's it for now....Later!!