Obama and Richardson events in the valley

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

Event details -

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

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

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

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


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

The details of the Phoenix event -

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

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


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

Later!

Dean Martin - State Treasurer, Investigation Subject, ...and Traffic Builder?

This blog has been getting a higher-than-normal number of hits today, with a number of hits based on searches for "Dean Martin Arizona Treasurer" or some variation thereof.

I wasn't what was behind the traffic jump until I visited the website of the East Valley Tribune and found this headline and story -

AG probe into Martin focuses on campaign money

A new complaint involving old allegations from a longtime critic of state Treasurer Dean Martin triggered the short-lived investigation into Martin’s finances by Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office.

The 'longtime critic' mentioned in the Trib piece is Bob Haran, who I mentioned in my most recent post on the Martin investigation and in my earlier posts on these same allegations here, here, and here.

In the end, the now-federal investigation may only prove that Mr. Martin is unethical, but is that a character trait that we want in a state treasurer?

The bottom line is that he's a fraud scandal and indictment waiting to happen.

Later!

Quarterly FEC reports - updated

Updated on 10/16 with every incumbent now reporting; many of those who are just 'exploring' haven't filed yet. Many of those, because of the timing of their organization, won't *have* to report until after the first of the year.


Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand

CD1

Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.

Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81

Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.

Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.

Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.

CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.


CD2

Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87

John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87

CD3

Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52

John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26

Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16

Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68

CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.

This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.

Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.

CD4

Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71

CD5

Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00

Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25

JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70

Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0

CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.

CD6

Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38

CD7

Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00

CD8

Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80

Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25

Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(

CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.

Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))


Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.

The FEC numbers count more. :))

A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.

A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.

Later!

There's a fine line between wicked irony and utter cluelessness

and which side of that line do you think Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice falls on?

Consider some of the statements that she made concerning a certain world leader and his government (courtesy a Department of State transcript) (note: I've replaced specific name references to the subject country with 'XXX') -

[Rice] But I've continued to make what I think are the essential points. There are issues of human rights and we've been concerned and I've talked a good deal about the problems of individuals, journalists and others, who have had difficulty. But there are also institutional issues, issues about the -- in a presidential system not having strong institutions, countervailing institutions, to the presidency. And I've been very open about the concerns that that raises in any country, not just in XXX but in any country. If you don't have countervailing institutions, then the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development.

QUESTION: They gave a very long list of all the problems they're facing -- NGO restrictions, anti-terrorism measures that are used against political opposition. I mean, did you come away with that given a sense -- with a sense that the U.S. can do anything to reverse it or are you left with this at the end of the your tenure?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I thought that one interesting comment was that, if you remember, we worked very hard on the NGO law, and the comment was that it -- the law itself, like many laws, are not so bad, that the question is really implementation and concerns really that for larger human rights groups who can deal with some of the bureaucratic issues, they can get through them, but concerns about very small human rights groups. And so that's a place to work and to see if we can prevail upon the Russian Government to be more forward leaning and less bureaucratic for smaller groups.

[Rice] But I think this country is in the process of developing its institutions and developing the relationship of those institutions to each other and the relationship of the government to the citizens, and the ability of citizens themselves to engage in meaningful political activities. And so I'm always very concerned that there be space for citizens, XXX citizens, to organize themselves in order to be able to petition their government.

[Rice] This is a country in the midst of a big transition. And I think some of the aspects of that transition have made the YYY-XXX relationship more difficult. For instance, clearly some of the ways in which the oil and gas industry have developed here with very close connections to the politics, with concerns about whether or not contracts are stable, with concerns about the use of energy for political motivation, have introduced strains into the relationship.

[Rice] Ultimately, democratic guarantees come from institutional development. Democratic governance comes from a president who can never be too strong because there will always be a congress or a parliament to check him or her, because there will be an independent media to shed light on what is going on.

[Rice] I've said that I think there's too much concentration of power in the XXX. And I've told the XXX that. I've said it publicly before. Because it's just the absence of -- I think everybody has doubts about the independence, full independence, of the judiciary...but on a lot of very high-profile cases I think there are questions about the independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media...

As most of you probably know, she was talking about Russian President Putin. However, all of the Russian references that were replaced by "XXX" (words like Russia, Russian, Kremlin, Duma) could easily have been replaced with U.S.A, American, White House, and Congress, etc., and the statements would still be accurate.

So, any speculation? Was she being ironic or just clueless?

AP, via CNN.com, coverage here.

A number of other blogs caught this one too - like The Blue State, The One With Aldacron, and The Agonist, among others.

I'd have been quicker with this post, but work beckoned. :))

Later!

House bill HR2102, an open attack on bloggers, reaches the House floor next week

H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill that I've written about before (here, here, and here) hits the House floor next week, after a brief stop in the Rules Committee.

As I wrote in late August, as submitted the bill would craft a fairly general federal journalist's shield law; as amended in the Judiciary Committee, it would restrict that shield to "professional" journalists only.

From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as introduced -

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as amended (emphasis mine) -

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term 'covered person' means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

The 'financial gain or livelihood' language clearly targets non-commercial journalists such as bloggers.

During the Judiciary Committee's deliberations on the amendment, the desire to craft a shield that couldn't be used by terrorists was cited as the justification for the restriction.

However, a couple of clauses in the amended version of the bill give lie to that rationalization, and point toward another motivation - protecting corporate media organizations from burgeoning competition from amateurs on the internet.

First, paragraph 2 of the amended definition of “covered persons” already specifically provides exceptions to the shield for foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, and designated terrorist organizations. As such, the financial gain language is unnecessary.

Second, clause C of paragraph 3 in section 2 of the amended bill overtly places the interests of commercial entities on par with the interests of public safety and national security.

Even in its current form, however, the bill is only a tepid, ineffectual one. A couple of propsed amendments submitted to the Rules Committee seek to turn the current weak bill into an abomination.

From the amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia -

Covered Person – The term "covered person" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares...for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain...

It was thought by many, including some members of the Judiciary Committee, that the original amendment would still cover many bloggers because many (though not me!) derive a small income from advertisements on their websites. Adding "substantial" to the financial gain language is an open attempt to close that avenue to protection.

Additionally, the amendment submitted by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas would lower the threshold of significance that the government would have to meet to compel disclosure of a source. It would lower the threshold so much that disclosure of the source would no longer have to be "critical" or "necessary" to the government's case, just "helpful" or "important."

In short, these amendments would render meaningless the shield crafted by the underlying bill.

Earlier this evening, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell expressing my concerns with the amended bill and the proposed further amendments. In addition, I urged him to try to restore the 'covered persons' definition to its broader original language and to fight the further amendments submitted by Boucher and Smith.

I now urge every blogger and everyone who cherishes true freedom of the press to contact their own Congressional representative, and to do so as soon as possible. The bill is before the Rules Committee on Monday at 5:00 p.m. EDT, and can reache the House floor shortly after that, possibly as soon as Tuesday.

A few other notes on the issue -

...When I called the Judiciary Committee staff in August asking for the specific language in the amendment, they repeatedly put me off, saying that it would be posted in THOMAS within a week or two.

The hearing was on the first of August; the amendment was posted in THOMAS on the 10th of October.

They also later told me that the bill was *not* amended in committee, that an amendment was only discussed and not approved. I thought then that the statement was a lie.

I now *know* it was a lie.

...There is a related bill in the Senate, S. 2035. It contains the original, broader, definition of "covered persons" that doesn't have the financial gain language.

However, in perhaps the least surprising move of the year, Arizona's anti-open government activist Senator Kyl is fighting it tooth-and-nail; don't hold your breath on that bill ever passing the Senate in anything resembling an effective form.

In summary, HR2102 is a weak bill that certain Republicans (what? You though Boucher and Smith were Democrats?!? LOL) are trying to water-down even more. Get the word out to other bloggers and interested folks -

Contact your Congresscritters!! Let them know that you think this bill is already too weak!

Thanks for reading this long post all the way through!

Later!

Quarterly FEC filings are rolling in...

from the various Congressional campaigns. The list isn't complete (the due date is the 15th) but here's a partial summary of reports from active committees (not necessarily active candidates) -

Key: Candidate name, affiliation - total contributions, PAC $, individual contributions, cash on hand

CD1

CD2

Trent Franks, Republican - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87

CD3

Annie Loyd, Independent - $12139.24; 0; $12139.24; $5001.16

CD4

Ed Pastor, Democrat - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71


CD5

Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0

CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.

CD6

CD7

CD8

Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80

Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat - $663,297.91; $228,891.49; $434,406.42; $407,041.71

Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.

The FEC numbers count more. :))

Yes, it's a little early for this post, but I work weekends and won't have the time to do a more complete post until early next week.

Candidate visits and other events calendar

Friday, October 12 - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter appears in Scottsdale.

Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Location: New Vision Spiritual Growth Center, 9659 N. Hayden Rd. (SE Corner of Hayden & Mountain View)
More info here.


Friday October 12 - The Big Picture Film Series and the LD17 Democrats present the documentary "In Debt We Trust."

Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.


Saturday, October 13 - Democratic State Committee Meeting in Tucson

Time: 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Location: Tucson High School, 400 North Second Avenue, Tucson.


Thursday, October 18 - The Big Picture Film Series and the D17 Democrats present the film "Invisible Ballots." The film addresses concerns about electronic voting and the lack of a paper trail. It is an in-depth analysis of the "privatization" of voting in America.

Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.


Thursday, October 18 - The D8 Democrats present speaker Cynthia Black, producer and host of "Action Point--Solution Politics" on KPHX radio, 1480 AM.

Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Mustang Library, 10101 N. 90th St., Scottsdale.


Friday, October 19 - Campaign appearance by Senator Barack Obama in Tempe.

Time: 11:00 a.m.
Location: TBA, details available soon at Arizonans for Obama.

Edit to add: Jeff Berlinsky, Obama supporter and owner of the Sub-Culture Cafe in Tempe, has a sandwich named after Senator Obama, the "Commander In Cheese." It is made with Oven Gold Turkey, American Cheese, Lettuce and Tomato. For each "Commander In Cheese" sold, he will contribute $1 to the Obama campaign.

The Sub-Culture Cafe is located at 227 E Baseline Rd., Suite J7, Tempe.

End edit...


Also on Friday, October 19 - Obama for President fundraiser in Phoenix.

Time: 12:30 p.m.
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix
Details: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/phoenix1019

Note: The Arizona headquarters of the Obama campaign is now open. It is located at 22 E Mitchell Dr., Phoenix, AZ 85012 (Directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)
Web site: arizona.barackobama.com


Friday, October 26 - The D8 Democrats present "Friday Night at the Movies" in Fountain Hills. This month's movie is "Invisible Ballots." (link above)

Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Fountain Hills Community Center, 13001 N. La Montana Dr, Fountain Hills.


Friday, November 2 - Arizona Democratic Party Hall of Fame Dinner, with special guests James Carville, Governor Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Terry Goddard.

Time: 6:00 p.m. registration and reception; 7:00 p.m. dinner
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix


Friday, November 16 - Presidential Candidate and former Senator Mike Gravel will be speaking to the ASU Young Democrats.

Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location and other info: Contact the ASU Young Dems.

Later!

House Judiciary Committee approves revision to FISA

...and the bill should hit the House floor next week.

The bill, HR3773, is notable both for what it contains, judicial oversight provisions, and what it doesn't contain, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration's violation of privacy and civil liberty laws.

President Bush has demanded both freedom from oversight and that immunity for telecoms, saying that he will veto any bill that doesn't meet both criteria.

The committee hearing went as expected, with Republicans, including Arizona's own Trent Franks, arguing that any judicial oversight only helps terrorists kill Americans, and Democrats arguing "bulls_t."

(OK, so they were a little bit more eloquent than that; the meaning was the same. :) )

After going back and forth over various amendments and the underlying bill for a while, the committee passed the bill along party lines.

The bill isn't perfect. The ACLU has some objections and urges support of the "FISA Modernization Bill" instead of this bill, the RESTORE Act. This bill still gives way too much authority to the President. However, it is a vast improvement over the repugnant "Protect America Act" (PAA) that was passed and signed into law in August.

Note: I couldn't find a link to a bill with the name "FISA Modernization" but I'll keep looking; I think the act that the ACLU prefers is HR3782, "To reiterate the exclusivity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the sole authority to permit the conduct of electronic surveillance, to modernize surveillance authorities...,"introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).


While less than perfect, the RESTORE Act is significantly less vile than the PAA. There will still be a lot of angst over the bill from the Republicans and from Democrats who are afraid of the President (aka - the Blue Dogs), all of whom will attempt to water down the oversight provisions.

And to protect the large campaign contributors in the telecommunication$ indu$try. [Can't forget them :) ]

However, it is something of a compromise bill - it does contain some things that the President wants (blanket warrants that require only an annual review/renewal). It does also contain enough to assuage some of the concerns of civil liberties-focused progressives in Congress.

Further watering-down of civil liberties at the behest of the President and his water carriers on the Hill (like Franks!) will only push the more hesitant members into the 'No' column on the RESTORE Act and increase the likelihood that the Congress will receive and pass a bill that the President will *really* hate.

Hmmm....there's a thought.... :)

Anyway, I have a final question, one that I don't ever expect a straight answer to, so I won't bother actually asking it of Trent Franks, Dan Lungren (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA) and the other opponents of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the House.

So I'll just post it here. :))

It's not an original question (I don't know who first asked it in print, otherwise I'd give credit here), but it needs to be asked again -


Revocation of which part of the Constitution would prevent terrorist attacks?


A simple question, really, but one that the fear-mongers can never answer, because there isn't such a section and they know it. They also know that blind, unreasoning fear is the only thing that the Republican Party has left to offer America and they're hoping they can milk it one more time.


A FireDogLake post by Christy Hardin Smith containing a rough transcript of a statement by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is here.

CongressDaily, via GovExec.com, coverage of the hearing here.

CNN coverage here.

House Judiciary Committee summary of the provisions of the new bill is here; a comparison between the Restore Act and PAA is here.

House Judiciary Committee press release on the hearing here.

Later!

Prominent Republicans endorse Hillary Clinton for President

Well, not directly, but certain Republican candidates spent most of their debate yesterday campaigning against her.

The Wall Street Journal transcript of the debate is here.

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination kept hitting her on health care, Iran, the economy, and more.

And if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the target was former President Bill Clinton.

Giuliani, from the transcript -

...The line item veto was unconstitutional. I took Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court and beat Bill Clinton...

It should be noted here that Giuliani flip-flopped within a few moments -

So you can bang your head up against the stone wall all you want. I am in favor of a line item veto...

...He was against it before he was in favor of it? Or does he only favor the line-item veto when Republicans wield it?

Anyway, back to the real focus of this post - the Republicans did Hillary Clinton a huge favor yesterday.

Her biggest weakness, current frontrunner status notwithstanding, is that her candidacy has *not* been warmly embraced by the grassroots of the Democratic Party; she comes across as too much the candidate of the corporate establishment, not the candidate of the average American.

However, the fact that the Republicans are ganging up on her already only shores up her credibility with the likely primary voters, active Democrats.

Now the question is did they do that because they think that because she is the Great Boogeywoman that Republican parents tell stories about to scare their children and attacking her will bring Republican votes to them in the primaries?

Or do they realize that they strengthen her candidacy when they attack her and just think that she is the most beatable in the general election?

One other note on the debate: while I didn't see the entire debate, from what I did see, whenever new entrant Fred Thompson flubbed his lines, he looked like someone who was used to hearing a director yell "Cut! Do it again!" and was a little lost when he didn't hear those words.

Later!

Campaign literature season has started

Got a bit of snail mail today, addressed to "The [cpmaz] Family."

It was from the Schweikert Congressional Exploratory Committee (i.e. - one of the Republicans running against Harry Mitchell in CD5 next year.)

The envelope contained a short letter asking for support and a postage-paid reply card.

His campaign is still an "exploratory" one because he is currently the Maricopa County Treasurer and would have to "resign to run" under Arizona law if he becomes a candidate while he has more than one year left in his term of office.

I was impressed by a passage from the letter -

...As we have all seen in the last few years, many of our leaders in Washington have continued to increase the size and scope of government, while wasting our tax dollars on pork projects that do little or no good for our country.

{snip}

If you are like me, you are frustrated with what's going on in Congress. Frustrated with the corruption and the unwillingness of our leaders to stop government waste...

Wow! He speaks like a true Democrat! Observing the Republican 'culture of corruption' and waste, and vowing to challenge it!


...Too bad *he's* a Republican himself...


Note to Mr. Schweikert: The next time you ask the County Recorder's office for a mailing list, have them use search criteria of "CD5 residents but not Democratic Party PCs or wiseass bloggers."

Just a suggestion... :))

Red Sox/Indians and Rockies/Diamondbacks in the LCSs

Totally non-political post ahead...

A few quick observations on both of baseball's League Championship Series -


...The two opponents in the NLCS, the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies, have played for a combined 24 seasons.

The teams in the ALCS, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians?

Well over 220 seasons.

I'm not sure what it means (probably nothing), but it's still eye-opening...


...An NLCS matchup between the DBacks and the Rocks? Who would have predicted that in early April?

Hell, who would have predicted that in late August??

I like the DBacks and hope they win (I would *love* to see a Red Sox/DBacks World Series), but I have more than a little admiration for the Rockies.

They were even bigger underdogs than the DBacks; I thought the DBacks were a year and a pitcher away from serious contention, but the Rocks weren't even on the long-range radar.


...Both series should be good ones - in the National League, the Rockies won the regular season series against the DBacks, winning 10 games and losing 8, and they have gotten hot at the right time of the season, but the DBacks have Brandon Webb, Micah Owings and a team that just never gives up.

In the AL, the Indians and the Red Sox entered the playoffs with identical regular season records and both made short work of their first round opponents. They both have strong offenses and solid defenses, and with their short first-round series, rested pitching staffs.

Predictions: DBacks in 6 (Webb is just too much for the Rocks to overcome) and Red Sox in 7 (that's as much wishful thinking as anything else - this pair is *really* evenly matched).


...George Steinbrenner, managing general partner of the New York Yankees, has threatened to fire manager Joe Torre if the Yankees lost their playoff series against the Cleveland Indians.

Tonight, though they made it interesting in the 9th inning with a third deck home run by Bobby Abreu and a monster foul homer by Jorge Posada, the Yankees lost in the first round of the playoffs for the third year in a row.

Now, baseball fans everywhere, not just in New York, are waiting to see if the Boss will carry out his threat.

Steinbrennerwants to fire the man who has led the Yankees to 10 division titles in 12 seasons and 4 World Series titles, the man who has held together a team that in 1998 was considered one of the best teams ever to one that is now better known for its aging pitching staff (Joba-mania notwithstanding) and thin bench, the man who never wilts under the harsh glare of the attention of the New York media and fans?

Whoooo hoooo!!

There is a God in heaven!!

Uncle George and the Bronx Zoo are back and they're loonier than ever!!

Every team in the AL, even the Red Sox, is breathing a little easier tonight.

Later!

Light Rail Public Meetings

This isn't normally a topic that I would cover, but when I went out today, I found a door hanger notice for two public meetings to (quoting from the doorhanger) (emphasis mine) -

...learn about and provide input to the high-capacity transit study in the I-10 West study area...

The "I-10 West" study area roughly encompasses the area of 7th St. west to 99th Avenue and Buckeye Road north to Thomas Road.

The meetings will be held on October 23 from 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. at the Desert West Community Center, 6501 W. Virginia Ave. in Phoenix and on October 25 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at University Park's Safe Haven Room, 350 N. 10th Ave. in Phoenix.


My question - Why did they notify East Valley (i.e. - south Scottsdale) residents about West Valley public meetings?

There are light rail meetings in *this* area, and they are this week.


From Valley Metro's website -

October 10, 2007 Line Section 4 CAB Meeting, 3 p.m - 5 p.m., Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), Jim Starz room, 670 S. 48th Street, Phoenix, AZ.

October 11, 2007 Line Section 5 CAB Meeting, 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m., Escalante Community Center, 2150 E. Orange St., Tempe, AZ.

The info on the West Valley meetings can be found here.

What they said...what they were thinking

As a courtesy to weary readers, buried under countless pap-filled statements and pontifications from public officials, I now offer a quick guide to some recent quotes.

Purely for educational purposes. :))

Mitt Romney, when confronted by a muscular dystrophy patient who needs prescribed medical marijuana to make it through each day (after being told that Romney's recommended synthetic marijuana make the patient ill) -

What he said:

"I am not in favor of medical marijuana being legal in the country," Romney said as he moved on to greet other people. (CNN)

What he was thinking:

[singing]
When a man's an empty kettle,
He should be on his mettle
And yet I'm torn apart.
Just because I'm presumin'
That I could be kinda human,
If I only had a heart. (WarnerBrothers.com)

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the investigation of Republican Bill Montgomery, former candidate for Attorney General (AZCentral.com)

What he said:

"It was a political thing," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said of the complaint. "We sent people out; we just couldn't make the case."

What he was thinking:

"It was a political thing," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said of the complaint. "We sent people out; we just don't think it's wrong for Republicans to hire illegal aliens."

John McCain during the 2000 Presidential campaign -

What he said:

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance," whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson on the right."

What he was thinking in 2007 when the long-time Episcopalian announced that he is a Baptist (coincidentally, he's running as a Baptist in heavily Baptist South Carolina) (The Carpetbagger Report) and proclaimed that the Constitution created the United States as a Christian nation (BeliefNet.com), as he clicks his heels together:

"I wish I was President, I wish I was President, I wish I was President."

President George Bush, from his weekly radio address -

What he said about his SCHIP veto:

...When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first...our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage...

What he was thinking:

[$inging]
When a man'$ an empty kettle,
He $hould be on hi$ mettle
And yet I'm torn apart.
Ju$t becau$e I'm pre$umin'
That I could be kinda human,
If I only had a heart. (WarnerBrother$.com)

Later!

Events Calendar - Presidential Campaign Edition

Obama Campaign -

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

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

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

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

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


Richardson Campaign -

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

Details/RSVP: Ray Glendening at the Richardson campaign


Kucinich campaign -

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


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

Another corporate lobbyist to run against Harry Mitchell

From the AZ Republic -

SCOTTSDALE: Former Councilwoman Susan Bitter Smith said she likely will run in next year's Republican primary in the 5th Congressional District. The seat is help by Democrat Harry Mitchell.

Bitter-Smith, in addition to being a former member of the Scottsdale City Council, she is also a former candidate for Congress (2000), current chair of the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Coalition (at least according to an AZ Rep article; the Coalition's website is unavailable), current President of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - Central Arizona Project), and long-time Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Telecommunications Association.

In addition to all of her corporate ties listed above, within the last year she has been working to raise her "community group" profile with her involvement in 'Citizen Advocates for Southern Scottsdale' (CASS).

I put "community group" in quotes because CASS seems less a genuine grassroots group and more an astroturf operation run by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce and Virginia Korte.

Her lobbying activities have led her to espouse some politically touchy views. For instance, as chair of the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Coalition she opposes the recent City of Phoenix ban on sending text messages while driving.

"Corporate profits over the safety of the general public" is not a campaign slogan that will fly too far at a time when the country, left, center, and right, is in an uproar over George Bush's veto of SCHIP to protect insurance industry profits.

It's late, and I have to work in the morning, so I don't have time to do a campaign contribution search for her and the various groups that she's been affiliated with tonight, though I will do one later in the week.

Her interest in Harry Mitchell's seat in CD5 has long been rumored, and she is the fifth candidate to express a strong interest (Mark Anderson, Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, and David Schweikert). While the field is getting crowded, and may see still other entries, I don't expect to see more than three or so names on next fall's Republican ballot.

At least a couple of the candidates will find fundraising in that crowded field to be an overly daunting task. In addition, some will find the task of raising their name recognition among primary voters to be an insurmountable hurdle.

I won't start speculating on who is going to fall by the wayside even before the primary vote until fundraising figures start rolling in.

Later!