Short Attention Span Musing - campaigns edition

...Well, in a shock to the MSM, but not to anyone else, both parties' races for the Presidential nomination are wide open right now. Pundits are trying to spin Tuesday's results from New Hampshire as a "major" Clinton victory and a serious blow to Obama's White House aspirations.

Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.

Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.

Of course, he won in NH in 2000.

In other words - it's not over.

...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.

He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.

His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.

Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.


...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.


...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.

In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.

There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.

If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.

It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.

Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.

I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.

Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.


...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.

Our loss.

Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.


...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.

She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.

Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.


CD5 race news -

...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.

Her stated reason for waiting?

Bitter Smith, the Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Television Communications Association, says that her decision depends on what happens on February 5 – the day Arizonans go to the polls to participate in the state’s presidential primary. She said that a strong Republican turnout would be encouraging.

Bitter Smith also said she was looking for a “strong Republican” to head up the Party ticket in November.

Not really news that; rumors about a possible run have been swirling for months. What is interesting is the rest of the quote from the article -

When asked which candidate she preferred, she laughed. “McCain, Rudy (Giuliani), Romney,” she said.

Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.

Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.


...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.

He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.

Later!

To Jack Harper I say this: Thank You.

One of the biggest complaints that I hear from independent voters concerns the divisively rancorous of partisan politics these days, and how they place the blame for that on both parties equally.

Then someone comes along to show everyone precisely where that blame belongs...


State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been making a strong early push in the race for the 2008 Legislative Loon award, what with his efforts to 'de-citizenfy' babies because he doesn't approve of their parents and his now-abandoned run at Rep. Jeff Flake's seat in the CD6 Republican primary (from the *right* of all places!).

However, the winner of the 2007 Legislative Loon award, state Sen. Jack Harper, isn't giving up his title without a fierce fight.

From Amanda Crawford at the AZ Republic's Plugged In -

Sen. Jack Harper is responding to the outcries of constituents, he says, in a bill that will allow independents to vote in presidential primaries while sticking it to the Dems at the same time.

The bill, which Harper filed today, would allow unaffiliated voters, Repubicans and members of minority parties to choose which primary they vote in, Democrat or Republican. Registered Democrats, however, would only be able to vote in the Democratic primary.

When asked by a reporter, Harper declined to defend his proposal to grant Republican voters more freedom than Democratic voters. The only thing that he stated, over and over, was "that the independents are no longer disenfranchised."

Harper's bill, SB1064, would allow someone (emphasis mine) "who is registered as independent, as no party preference, as a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 or as a member of a political party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 and that has the highest number of registered voters as of the last day on which a person may register to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary..." to cast a ballot in any party's presidential preference primary.

As of October 1, 2007 (the date of the most recent voter registration count on the AZ Secretary of State's website), the Republican Party has a voter reg advantage of just over 141,000 voters.

Even the cosponsor of the bill, Sen. Jim Waring, was surprised by anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) language (apparently he didn't read the bill before signing on as a cosponsor - how foolish is that?), stating that he won't vote for the bill unless it is changed to a fair one.

...For proposing a bill that is so beyond the pale that even one of his fellow conservative Republicans has publicly stated his opposition to it...

...For finding a reservoir of shamelessness within himself that is deep enough to both propose a bill that is so completely contemptuous of democratic principles *and* to avoid publicly standing behind it...

...For giving the Arizona Republican Party a public face that truly represents the party's core values...during an election year...

...For helping to illustrate in stark contrast the differences between the two major parties...

...For all that and more (check out his SCR1007, another attempt to create a state-funded vigilante force), I say this to Jack Harper -

Thank you.



The funny thing is, if he had just proposed a clean bill, one that allowed independent or non-affiliated voters to vote in any presidential preference primary that they wanted to, he would have been hailed by independents and maybe even earned a little respect from Democrats (yes, even me :) ).

Guess he's more interested in winning the Legislative Loon award again than in winning respect.

Update on contaminated drinking water in Scottsdale

Edit on 1/17/2008 to add: For those readers looking for info on the January 2008 incident affecting drinking water in parts of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, my post on that is here. That post includes links to news reports, the City of Scottsdale's press release on the subject (with a link to a map of the affected area, and a link to Arizona American Water's press release.

End edit...

In the wake of the surprise announcement in November that "incompletely remediated" (aka - insufficiently treated) groundwater entered the drinking water supply in Scottsdale, there was a lot of activity to address the biggest concerns arising from the announcement - the contaminated drinking water itself, and the fact that after the test sample was taken, it took nearly a month to notify the residents of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.

Earlier today, Vicki Rosen, Community Involvement Coordinator at the EPA, sent out the following email update of the situation -

Hello NIBW CIG,

Happy New Year to you all.

As those of you who attended the November meeting will undoubtedly remember, the relaying of information about the recent short-term problem at the Miller Road Treatment Facility (MRTF) drew much concern.

We realize, of course, that it wasn't just that some water did not get the treatment it should have, but also that the process of reporting the situation and then communicating as such with our interested citizens could have been better.

Currently, our NIBW team is reviewing the policy of how all this should work and seeing how to make the communication better. We are also reviewing what additional safeguards might be needed at the plant to lessen the chance such an occurrance will happen in the future. Attached are two letters on the MRTF issue: the first from Congressman Harry Mitchell to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, and the second a response from EPA Regional Administrator Wayne Nastri.

Also attached is a copy of the final Communication Plan developed by the Participating Companies and approved by EPA. A draft of this plan was presented to the CIG and discussed at a CIG meeting in 2003. The final plan incorporates the community input received at the time. The actual approval date of July 11, 2007 is later because this document was part of a larger submittal requirement for the Remedial Design / RemedialAction Work Plan. That is why this final Communication Plan was not forwarded to the CIG before now. But as I've stated, the CIG saw theearlier version several years ago. The final plan is now on our NIBW website.

Jamey and I will be getting back to you regarding any changes to the processes of sampling, analysis, reporting, etc., and we'll arrange for another CIG meeting to discuss this in detail. We want you to know that we take any breakdown in the NIBW cleanup systems seriously and we are committed to sharing information in a timely manner and discussing the what, why and wherefore with our interested community members.

Thank you for your understanding and patience and also for caring about your community's environment.

Vicki

The text of Harry Mitchell's letter to the administrator of the EPA is here.

The EPA's response, via Regional Administrator Nastri, can be summed up thusly - "the public wasn't in any danger, we're looking into it, and promise it won't happen again." If you want a copy of the letter, contact me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com and I'll be happy to forward the email to you, with the attachments, or let Vicki know at vicki.rosen[at]epa.gov and she'll add you to the NIBW mailing list.

The NIBW Communication Plan at the link.

Previous posts here and here.

Later!

I know that Ron Paul is a "non-traditional" candidate...

...but his supporters have to learn that sometimes things become "traditional" because they work...

On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.

The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.

But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.

It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.

They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.

I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.

If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.

Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).

Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.

And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -

After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.

In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.

Just something to think about...

Where do they go from here?

My quick take on the Iowa caucus results -

Democratic side...

Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.

Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)

Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.

Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.

Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.

If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.

Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.

Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.


Republican side...

Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.

Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.

And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.

Lots more.

Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.

McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.

Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.

Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?

Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.

Later!

Events calendar

edit on 1/5 to add COGS event...

Saturday, January 5 - The Clinton for President campaign is holding a grand opening/open house at its Arizona office from noon until 2:00 p.m.

Location: 2845 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Thomas and Central)

Info page here.


Starting Monday, January 7 - The Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives will begin holding meetings to come up with budget cuts to close the $970 million state budget deficit. The meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Contact the House at (602) 926-4221 or 1-800-352-8404 for more information. AZ Republic coverage here.


Tuesday, January 8 - The District 17 Democrats will feature a presidential candidate forum at its January meeting. Representatives from the campaigns of each Democratic candidate have been invited to talk about their candidates and, time permitting, answer a few questions from the audience.

The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Pyle Center in Tempe (Southern and Rural)

The meeting is open to the public. If you need any information, contact me via this blog or at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.


Tuesday, January 8 - The Scottsdale City Council holds its first meeting of 2008. On the agenda: discussion and possible action concerning the Transportation Master Plan, a possible referendum question regarding fixed rail and fixed route transit along Scottsdale Road, and discussion of exempting "food for home consumption" from the City's 1% General Fund privilege sales tax.

Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m., City Hall Kiva, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale.

Should be an interesting meeting, but go to the D17 meeting - it will be more interesting, and Scottsdale City Council meetings are recorded anyway. Video archive page here. :)


Thursday, January 10 - The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) will hold its January meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Senior Center is located at 1700 N. Granite Reef (northwest corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)


Thursday, January 17 - The D8 Democrats will feature speakers from the various Democratic campaigns at their monthly meeting.

7:00 p.m. at the Mustang Library, 10101 N 90th St, Scottsdale (90th St., south of Shea)


Tuesday, January 22 - A forum/overview of current First Amendment issues with
Bill Straus and David Bodney of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the Mustang Library in Scottdale at 6:30 p.m.


Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council NJDC) is holding its monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m., location TBA. Info at njdcphx[at]cox.net.

Later!

What do Iowa and New Hampshire mean?

edit on 1/5 to correct some incorrect info...thanks to TimWilsonAZ for the heads-up...

...Not as much as some might think...

Within the next week, Iowa and New Hampshire will choose the major party nominees for president.

OK, not really, but with the way the campaigns have focused so much energy on wooing caucus-goers and voters in those states, as well as the way the MSM has focused on every belch and blink, someone unfamiliar with the American political process might think that.

At the risk of uttering heresy, why are the candidates putting so much into the early states? They command attention far out of proportion to their actual impact on the nominations.

To whit -

- In the 9 Democratic campaigns since Iowa became the first presidential nominating event in 1972, the winner of the caucuses became the eventual nominee only 5 times (2 of those were incumbents) and actually went on to win the Presidency only once (Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.)

- In the 8 Republican campaigns since 1976, only 5 of the caucus winners went on to receive the nomination, and only 3 of those won the Presidency (Reagan's re-election in 1984, baby Bush in 2000 and his reelection in 2004.

- New Hampshire hasn't been a much better predictor, with 6 out of 9 Democratic winners going on to win the nomination and only 2 to win the Presidency (Carter in 1976 and Clinton's re-election in 1996). On the Republican side, 6 out of 8 have gone on to win the nomination, 3 the Presidency (Reagan in 1980 and 2 re-elections.)

Even winning in both Iowa and New Hampshire hasn't meant much. Four times a Democrat has won in both states, and five times a Republican has won in both.

Of those 8 sweeps, only no non-incumbent has gone on to with the Presidency.

Some might count papa Bush in 1988 as a non-incumbent, but he was a sitting VP at the time. More importantly, many of the votes cast for him, both in the primaries and the general, were more for a third Reagan term than a first Bush term. He was a de facto incumbent.

And if Iowa and New Hampshire's low value as predictors weren't enough, consider their lack of practical value to a potential nominee.

On the Republican side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 40 and 24* delegates respectively (out of 2516*.

* = pre-penalty totals

On the Democratic side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 57 and 30 respectively, out of 4051*.

* = delegate numbers and totals subject to minor changes, but these numbers are close enough to suffice here.

In other words, Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire primary combined award less than 3% of their respective party's delegates, and Iowa isn't even 'winner-take-all.'

Hell, neither one even has as many delegates as Arizona.

From both campaigns and from the media, those two states garner attention far out of proportion to their actual value.

The New York Times has summed up the biggest fear of both the candidates and the MSM with this headline -

What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?

Perhaps a tie or near-tie would be nightmarish for the campaign and media pros, but it might be the best thing for the rest of the country because it would force the campaigns to treat the other states to a little more attention.

New Hampshire and Iowa do serve as a good way for the campaigns to get warmed up (despite the typical weather as NH and IA may be this time of year). They can test and refine their messages and organize their ground games within a couple of (relatively) focused environments.

It's also probably the last time that any of the serious candidates are forced to interact with real people; in the bigger states, and in the general, the only people that the candidates interact with are campaign officials, consultants and big money donors.

Having said all of this, on Thursday and Tuesday may the best Democrat (some guy from New Mexico :) ) and the Republican who is the least electable in a general election win and use their wins to catapult their ways to their respective parties' nominations.

:)

Why requiring that people buy health insurance is the wrong approach

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney offer similar plans to address health care in America. Both plans mandate that people purchase health insurance.

Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...


From AP via Businessweek -

No health care? Higher fines in Mass.

BOSTON

The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.

When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.

To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.

Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."

Hillary Clinton's health plan here.

Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")

Other candidates:

Edwards' plan

Giuliani's plan

Richardson's plan

McCain's plan

Obama's plan

Huckabee's plan

Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)

Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)

Biden's plan

Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.

Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.

One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?

They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.

If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?

Short Attention Span Musing

...Is state Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) trying to move up? Right now, most of his blog coverage is limited to "That's our Jack! Isn't he a nut?" posts, but a bill that he has proposed for the looming session of the Arizona lege may support moving him from the "loon" category of coverage into the "follow the money" category.

If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."

In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.

When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.

So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.

That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.

It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.

Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.

End edit.


...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?

George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)

He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.

The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.

From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -

"My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple," Lautenberg said in a statement.

Consider this -

- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.

- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.

- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.

Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.

Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?

The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.

I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.

However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.

Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?

Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.


...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.

So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?

Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?

Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?

Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?


The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)

Later!

Top stories of the year

It's something of a tradition for various media outlets to publish year-end lists recounting the most significant stories of the year. This will be just one of many such lists...


Anyway, here's my list of the top Arizona-related stories of the year (and not-too surprisingly, this list has a political bent to it) -


...In April, Arizona prisoners who were sent to a private prison in Indiana rioted, injuring at least two staff members and causing serious damage to the facility.

My original post on the topic is here.

I've got a phone call out to the Arizona Department of Corrections asking for an update, but called too late in the day for their PR folks to obtain an answer; I'll update tomorrow.

Edit to update: According to Bill at the DOC's media relations office, the contract with the Indiana prison is still active and prisoners are still being rotated through it.

End edit...


...In March, State Rep. Trish Groe was busted for a DUI in La Paz County. After various twists and turns to the case (including a stint in rehab shortly after the arrest, an abortive plea deal in May, and a felony indictment in September), Dennis Wilenchik, personal fixer for Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, arranged for Groe to pay a fine and to serve 10 days in the Maricopa County lockup.


...Also involving Wilenchik was the story of the County Attorney and the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, leading a jihad against the New Times, resulting in a grand jury inquisition of the New Times, led by Wilenchik, and the arrests of two of the New Times' journalists/publishers, ordered by Wilenchik.

The charges against to New Times' employees were dropped after the ensuing public outcry and criticism from all directions.

Don't fret about Wilenchik, though - his firm has received over $220K from the County Attorney's office since the whole New Times debacle.


...The economic slowdown has caused the state to have a revenue shortfall with the resulting budget deficit growing to more than $1 billion. This has led to plans for a 'pre-session' session of the Legislature in order to deal with the budget crisis.

The idea that the Republicans in the state senate have proposed to address the revenue shortfall? Among other things, reduce revenue...

Anyway, we're coming into an election year; expect any legislative proposals to deal with the deficit in a responsible way to be beaten back by the "any government is too much" clique in the Republican caucus. (Don't believe it? Read the already-submitted SB1002, a bill to repeal the state equalization property tax, a source of revenue for public education. It already has 17 primary sponsors, Republicans one and all.)

BTW - I wonder if Tim Bee is reconsidering his decision to only 'explore' a run against Gabrielle Giffords in CD8? Something tells me that stumping around Tucson and southern AZ is going to be more fun than running the state senate in Phoenix this coming year.


...John McCain's campaign for the Republican nomination for President was moribund and all but DOA this summer, but with the decline of Mitt Romney in the face of Mike Huckabee's rise has unexpectedly given McCain's campaign new life. His candidacy may fall eventually fall by the wayside, but at least for the next six weeks, he's back to being a contender.


...Of course, perhaps the biggest local political story was the passage and implementation of Arizona's employment sanctions law. The law would suspend then revoke the business licenses of businesses that hire undocumented immigrants. While overly draconian, the law was written skillfully enough to withstand lawsuits.

As expected, the nativist wing of the Republican Party is rejoicing in the broken lives and shattered families.

Note: Immigration in general was a hot topic all year; Man Eegee does a great job covering immigration issues in Arizona and beyond.


Stuff to watch in 2008 -

...Of course, one of the biggest stories of next year will be the elections...

- Who will win the presidential nominations for each party, and who will win the general election? When a Democrat wins the White House, will they offer Governor Napolitano a cabinet slot? And if one is offered, will she take it?

- Who will come out of the crowded Republican field in CD5 to challenge Harry Mitchell in November?

- Who will succeed the soon- (but not soon enough!) to-be-departed Rick Renzi in CD1? Things have been relatively low-key so far, but are certain to start heating up early in the new year.

- Will Dan Saban defeat Joe Arpaio for the Sheriff's job? Has Maricopa County finally had its fill of Arpaio after 16 years?

...Next year's state budget cycle looms as a far more contentious one than this year's, with the inevitable Republican demands to balance the state budget by cutting corporate taxes deep and public services even deeper. Who among the Reps will step up and place the fiscal future of the state above partisan bickering? And which among those Reps will pay for their apostasy by facing a primary challenger?

...What kind of legislative torture will Russell Pearce and his ilk try to inflict upon immigrants in 2008?

...Lastly, my deepest condolences go out to the friends, families, and loved ones of Benazir Bhutto (former Prime Minister of Pakistan) and those murdered in the suicide bombing in the aftermath of her assassination.

Important dates - Presidential primaries

Courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website and the Maricopa County Recorder's website -


Presidential Preference Election (aka - the primary) - February 5, 2008

Voter registration closes - January 7, 2008

Note: By Arizona law, voters must be registered in a party to vote in that party's presidential primary.

Early voting begins - January 10, 2008

Early voting requests end - January 25, 2008

Early ballots due - 7:00 p.m., February 5, 2008

Maricopa County early ballot request form here

State of Arizona voter registration here


Hope everyone had a happy and safe holiday!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Clement Moore said it simply and perhaps said it best, almost 200 years ago -

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

Democratic Ballot for AZ's Presidential Preference Primary

Edit to add - OK, so I was a little bored on Christmas Day, and decided to do a little research on the *ahem* 'lesser-known' candidates on the ballot. Some of the names were all but useless as search parameters and I couldn't find any information that was clearly pertinent to the presidential candidates. Others, however, were useful. A number of the candidates are participants in the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies' Project White House. One candidate has even announced that he is on the presidential primary ballot by mistake; he's actually running in CD6 against Jeff Flake (or Russell Pearce, if Pearce can actually pull of the political upset of the century.) Information at the links; however, given that few of the candidates have actual campaign websites, some of the info could be inaccurate.

End edit.

DSW at Sonoran Alliance put up a post detailing the Republican ballot; here's the listing of the Democratic one.

The list of candidates on the ballot for Arizona's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary taking place February 5, 2008 (courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website) (major candidates in bold; Arizona-based candidates noted with an 'AZ') -

WHITEHOUSE, SANDY (AZ) - president of the Santa Rita Foothills Community Association.

RICHARDSON, BILL

LYNCH, FRANK

KRUEGER, KARL - truck driver/radio personality

OBAMA, BARACK

EDWARDS, JOHN

BOLLANDER, PETER "SIMON" (AZ)

MONTELL, LELAND (AZ) - real estate agent

SEE, CHUCK (AZ) - ran for President as a Republican in 2000

HUBBARD, LIBBY (AZ) - artist

GEST, LOTI (AZ) - counselor at an addiction recovery center

DALEY, ORION - author

CAMPBELL, WILLIAM (AZ) - this is a lousy name for web searches.

TANNER, PHILIP (AZ)

KUCINICH, DENNIS J.

CLINTON, HILLARY

DOBSON, EDWARD (AZ)

HAYMER, TISH (AZ) - The Abbess of Costello?

LEE, RICH - another name provides lousy internet search terms

OATMAN, MICHAEL (AZ) - IT Guru

GRAVEL, MIKE

VITULLO, EVELYN L. (AZ) - a Democratic candidate for President in 2004

DODD, CHRISTOPHER J.

GRAYSON, RICHARD (AZ)


Notes:

The biggest surprise? No Joe Biden on the ballot.

Worst draw for a 'top-tier' candidate? Hillary Clinton; 15 candidates, including Richardson, Obama, and Edwards are listed higher on the ballot.

Is there something in Tucson's water? Of the 17 'anybody can run for President' candidates, 12 list a Tucson address. Maybe somebody should tell them that they are more likely to win a Powerball jackpot than the President's job.

Later!

A little perspective...

Yesterday, I was very ticked off at the failure of the Congressional Dems to do anything to bring Bush's war in Iraq under control and for their surrender on deficit reduction.

I'm *still* very ticked off.

However, in this post, Desert Beacon in Nevada lends some much-needed perspective to the Democratic record in the 1st Session of the 110th Congress.

A year and a half ago, the Democrats announced their "Six for '06" agenda.

This included (courtesy CNN) "national security, jobs and wages, energy independence, affordable health care, retirement security, college access for all."

Well, as DB noted, the Democrats in Congress passed, and got Bush to sign into law, "a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy."

Stem cell research was passed but vetoed by Bush.

And as DB also noted, 4 out of 6 gives you a damn good batting average.

I just hope that next year, the Congressional Dems can add a couple of home runs to the four singles of this year.

Later!

Definitely *not* a proud day for Congressional Democrats

Let's see...

Today, the House, by a vote of 272 - 142, gave Bush $70 billion to continue his war in Iraq, and they gave him the money unconditionally, with no strings attached.

No accountablity...

No timelines for withdrawal or even simple draw downs...

No benchmarks for success, not even the faux benchmarks that were used to rationalize a continuation of funding last spring.

78 Democrats, including AZ's Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords, crossed over and sided with the Republicans to issue the blank check to Bush.


Today's roll over on the Iraq war alone would normally be enough to make this a shameful day for the Democrats in Congress, but they kept on giving Bush and his cronies gifts....


...The House also passed S2499, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 by a vote of 411 - 3. The fact that every Democrat present voted for the bill represented a unamimous capitulation in the fight to improve SCHIP.

...The House also approved a Senate amendment to HR3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 (aka - Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] relief) by a vote of 352 - 64. That amendment is a symbol of the Democratic leadership's abject surrender in its stated quest for a fiscally responsible Congress.

The AMT is slated to impact approximately 23 million middle- and upper-income households this year, which is approximately 22,999,845 households more than it was originally targeted towards.

Democrats in Congress proposed a relief package that would have protected middle-class taxpayers (something that everyone in Congress supported) while compensating for the lost tax revenue by closing a tax loophole that allowed managers of offshore hedge funds to hide their incomes, well, offshore.

Did I mention that top hedge fund managers make more than $100 million per year? Virtually tax-free?

Needless to say, the Republicans in Congress were aghast at that idea, and today were joined by 157 Democrats (including the entire AZ delegation, except for the absent Ed Pastor) in approving a fiscally-irresponsible Senate amendment that expanded the budget deficit but protected ultra-wealthy hedge fund managers.

Bloomberg.com coverage of the AMT vote here.


Looking at events of this week, combined with the year-long collaboration with the Bushies, perhaps it's time for the Democratic Party to establish a new caucus within the party, one that someone can gain membership to simply by getting elected to Congress (House or Senate).

Call it "The Vichy Caucus."


Note - Here I was, feeling all clever and witty with the "Vichy" reference/insult, only to find that someone else beat me to it, almost two years ago. Damn, there goes the potential licensing income. :))

Later!