File this away...
FCI Safford contact info -
Inmate Mail/Parcels
INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FCI SAFFORD
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 9000
SAFFORD, AZ 85548
Physical Address (Do not use for mail unless it is the same as the mailing address listed.)
Use this address for in-person visits
FCI SAFFORD
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
1529 WEST HIGHWAY 366
SAFFORD, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-428-6600
Fax: 928-348-1331
MapQuest® Map and Directions
I know that it's early, and that there are many possible eventual outcomes to this situation that don't include prison time for Renzi - the DOJ could drop the charges, he could beat the rap, or be convicted but not receive a prison sentence - but I'm going to enjoy this while it lasts. :))
Oh, and for those of you who ask "Why FCI-Safford?" Simply put, it's the only federal corrections facility in AZ-CD1.
Later!
Friday, February 22, 2008
Ralph - Just Say No
From AP, via the AZ Rep -
Mr. Nader -
Are you a jaw-droppingly arrogant egomaniac, or are you simply nuts?
Hasn't the country suffered enough because of your hubris?
If you had a snowball's chance in Phoenix (in July!) of winning in the fall it would be one thing. However, the only thing you can do is take votes away from the eventual Democratic nominee.
On Sunday, when you sit down with Tim Russert, tell him whatever you need to to salve your ego - tell him it was a mistake, tell him you hit your head and were delusional when you agreed to appear on the show, tell him it's all part of an early and elaborate April Fool's joke, but tell him anything other than that you are running for President again.
Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.I ask this to Mr. Nader as someone who has admired much of his work through the years:
The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show.
Mr. Nader -
Are you a jaw-droppingly arrogant egomaniac, or are you simply nuts?
Hasn't the country suffered enough because of your hubris?
If you had a snowball's chance in Phoenix (in July!) of winning in the fall it would be one thing. However, the only thing you can do is take votes away from the eventual Democratic nominee.
On Sunday, when you sit down with Tim Russert, tell him whatever you need to to salve your ego - tell him it was a mistake, tell him you hit your head and were delusional when you agreed to appear on the show, tell him it's all part of an early and elaborate April Fool's joke, but tell him anything other than that you are running for President again.
Renzi Indicted
From AP -
...Not yet sure what this means in the CD1 race - if Renzi resigns, there will be a special election to fill his seat for the remainder of his term; however, there's no guarantee that he will resign before he's convicted.
Later!
Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.About damn time.
{snip}
The indictment accuses Renzi of using his position as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee to push the land swaps for [business partner James W.] Sandlin, who was also charged. It comes after a lengthy federal investigation into the land development and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.
The lengthy legal document says Renzi refused in 2005 and 2006 to secure congressional approval for land swaps by two unnamed businesses if they did not agree to buy Sandlin's property as a part of the deal.
...Not yet sure what this means in the CD1 race - if Renzi resigns, there will be a special election to fill his seat for the remainder of his term; however, there's no guarantee that he will resign before he's convicted.
Later!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Shadegg makes it official -
He's a flip-flopper.
From the AZ Republic -
In his original announcement, he cited a desire to spend more time with his family; in his recantation, he cited a discussion with his wife.
Perhaps while he wants to spend more time with his family, they may not want to spend more time with him.*
Democratic challenger Bob Lord's reaction -
This all should make for an interesting summer, because not only does Shadegg have to convince CD3 that he's actually interested in working for them, many of the sitting legislators that expressed an interest in the race (State Sens. Gorman and Waring, among others) have to convince their constituents of the same thing.
* = That's just me being a wiseass. :))
Later!
From the AZ Republic -
Shadegg changes mind, will run again
U.S. Congressman John Shadegg announced Thursday that he will run for re-election, changing a surprise decision he announced last week that he would retire.
In his original announcement, he cited a desire to spend more time with his family; in his recantation, he cited a discussion with his wife.
Perhaps while he wants to spend more time with his family, they may not want to spend more time with him.*
Democratic challenger Bob Lord's reaction -
"I've been looking forward to running against John Shadegg since day one, and I am still excited," said Bob Lord. "His behavior over the last 10 days calls into question whether he cares more about pleasing Washington insiders or serving the people of Arizona."
This all should make for an interesting summer, because not only does Shadegg have to convince CD3 that he's actually interested in working for them, many of the sitting legislators that expressed an interest in the race (State Sens. Gorman and Waring, among others) have to convince their constituents of the same thing.
* = That's just me being a wiseass. :))
Later!
Short Attention Span Musing
...In the most telling indicator of where the Republicans' heads are at, during yesterday's hubbub surrounding the NY Times' revelations that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and gave preferential treatment to her clients, Republican pundits seem to be most concerned with the "marital infidelity" allegation, not the "blatant corruption" allegation.
From Bay Buchanan, campaign advisor to presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-WD) and sister of Pat Buchanan, speaking on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 -
Umm, folks, let's be clear - any issues relating to marital fidelity are issues to be resolved between John and Cindy McCain, and no one else.
However, if the allegations of preferential treatment for lobbyists are true, the story could (and should!) really play havoc with the political ambitions of someone who has positioned himself as an icon of ethical propriety in D.C...
On another note, the McCain campaign has derided the Times' story as a "smear campaign" but the timing of the story actually benefits McCain - it has come out too late in the election cycle to influence the primaries and early enough that the story will fade and have no influence on the general election.
McCain and his supports may not like the story, but the timing is almost a personal favor to him.
The full NY Times' story here.
...A few short weeks ago, the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination seemed unquestionable; today, Barack Obama seems to be the 'inevitable' one, with his jump into the fundraising lead and winning 10 states' primaries/caucuses in a row.
It's not about who receives the most donations or who wins the most states; it's about who wins the majority of delegates.
The Democrats' practice of awarding delegates on a proportional basis make it unlikely that, short of a serious blowout in Texas or Ohio, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will pull away.
Having said all that, Clinton needs big wins in Texas and Ohio, and needs them far more than Obama. She's starting to hemorrhage superdelegates; another big win for Obama would only inspire more defections.
Expect both campaigns to continue operating at full throttle through March 4 and on to the convention...
...In a move that is sure to surprise no one, the New Times has made the preliminary moves to a lawsuit against Maricopa County and the various actors (Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, Dennis Wilenchik) in October's arrests of two New Times' founders for publishing stories critical of Arpaio and Thomas.
A lawsuit is necessary and deserved, but since the taxpayers of Maricopa County are the ones who will pick up the tab for any settlement/jury award, they'll keep doing what they want to do to stifle dissent.
The best way to teach Arpaio and Thomas that their desperate tinpot despot tactics are wrong is to vote for Dan Saban for Sheriff and Gerald Richard (or possibly Tim Nelson) for County Attorney.
Later!
From Bay Buchanan, campaign advisor to presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-WD) and sister of Pat Buchanan, speaking on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 -
But going to the point that David [Gergen, a CNN political analyst] raised, I will tell you there is a problem. This is not the Democratic Party. This is the party of values. And we assume that our candidates have been loyal to their families. We assume that. We don't ask them that question.
But, when the issue is raised, when somebody suggests you haven't been loyal to your wife and your family, then we expect them to be outraged, to be out there saying, for one thing, "I want you to know, without question, I have always been loyal to my wife and my children. And that I want to be understood clearly."
And, so far, I think John McCain has not made that strong enough. He is going to have to make that point very, very public, if he wishes to galvanize Republicans.
Umm, folks, let's be clear - any issues relating to marital fidelity are issues to be resolved between John and Cindy McCain, and no one else.
However, if the allegations of preferential treatment for lobbyists are true, the story could (and should!) really play havoc with the political ambitions of someone who has positioned himself as an icon of ethical propriety in D.C...
On another note, the McCain campaign has derided the Times' story as a "smear campaign" but the timing of the story actually benefits McCain - it has come out too late in the election cycle to influence the primaries and early enough that the story will fade and have no influence on the general election.
McCain and his supports may not like the story, but the timing is almost a personal favor to him.
The full NY Times' story here.
...A few short weeks ago, the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination seemed unquestionable; today, Barack Obama seems to be the 'inevitable' one, with his jump into the fundraising lead and winning 10 states' primaries/caucuses in a row.
It's not about who receives the most donations or who wins the most states; it's about who wins the majority of delegates.
The Democrats' practice of awarding delegates on a proportional basis make it unlikely that, short of a serious blowout in Texas or Ohio, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will pull away.
Having said all that, Clinton needs big wins in Texas and Ohio, and needs them far more than Obama. She's starting to hemorrhage superdelegates; another big win for Obama would only inspire more defections.
Expect both campaigns to continue operating at full throttle through March 4 and on to the convention...
...In a move that is sure to surprise no one, the New Times has made the preliminary moves to a lawsuit against Maricopa County and the various actors (Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, Dennis Wilenchik) in October's arrests of two New Times' founders for publishing stories critical of Arpaio and Thomas.
A lawsuit is necessary and deserved, but since the taxpayers of Maricopa County are the ones who will pick up the tab for any settlement/jury award, they'll keep doing what they want to do to stifle dissent.
The best way to teach Arpaio and Thomas that their desperate tinpot despot tactics are wrong is to vote for Dan Saban for Sheriff and Gerald Richard (or possibly Tim Nelson) for County Attorney.
Later!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Keep Digging
While the presence of John McCain at the top of the ticket this November may stave off the effects here in Arizona until 2010, the Republican Party is in an inexorable slide into electoral irrelevance for at least a generation.
One can cite many reasons for this trend (wholesale corruption, basic incompetence, etc.), but those are just symptoms of their problem. The underlying cause of their fall is the fact that that majority of Republicans, especially the majority of *elected* Republicans, are devoted to serving an idealogy more than their constituents.
This tendency can be seen at all levels of government.
- - In the days, weeks, months and years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Republican government, led by Bush, his Administration and his water-carriers on the Hill (and, unfortunately, aided and abetted by some Democrats) has suspended or blatantly ignored civil rights here and abroad (Gitmo, habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, etc.). However, during the anthrax attacks immediately after 9/11, when it was realized that the main anti-anthrax drug used in the U.S., Cipro, was in critically short supply, the Bush Administration ardently defended the patent of its manufacturer Bayer against calls that the government override the patent because of the public health crisis in order to allow other manufacturers to make a generic version.
- - Lost in the hubbub over John Shadegg's decision to retire and his later (and still ongoing) reconsideration of that decision because of a letter from most of his Republican colleagues in the House is the fact that nothing in the letter talks of how he is a dedicated advocate for CD3, which is, after all, what he was ostensibly hired to be when he was elected.
Instead, the letter raves about what a good and inspirational conservative he is and how his colleagues respect him. The letter closes with the line "[t]he Republican Conference needs
you here, the Conservative Movement needs you here, and the country needs you here."
Sounds like someone who is better qualified to be chair of the Arizona Republican Party or the RNC than CD3's elected representative in Congress.
- - Then, of course, there is everyone's (least) favorite anti-immigrant bigot, State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-LD18).
Not only does he gleefully push for harsh laws that destroy families, many of which live in his district, all in the name of his ideology of national 'purity,' he's extending his contempt for his constituents with bills like the one to repeal the state equalization property tax (HB2220), a direct attack on public education or the one to redirect state-shared revenue funds from municipalities to private land owners (HB2641). [Note: An EV Tribune story on this phenomenon here.]
His disdain for his constituents and his district is nothing new, as documented in this 2006 post about a candidate forum in Mesa.
A forum that Pearce blew off to spend time with J.D. Hayworth (a fellow traveler in the anti-immigrant bigot crowd) at a meeting of the LD18 Reps.
Pearce also likes to pimp...errr..."promote" bill ideas from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a front group for right-wing corporate interests while at the same time he disparages the City of Mesa's desire to protect state-shared revenue as part of its legislative agenda for the year.
From the EV Trib in November -
In short, his district only matters to him so long it follows his ideology; when there is a separation between his ideology and his district's needs, he throws his district under the bus.
- - Even when Republicans criticize other Reps, it's always for not being "conservative enough", never for failing to represent their constituents.
...John McCain with his 82%+ lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is on the receiving end of harsh criticisms from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and even some Arizona LDs. They call him too 'liberal.'
82% from the ACU? He's not even 'moderate', much less liberal.
...Here in AZ, Republicans like State Senator Carolyn Allen, State Representative Bill Konopnicki, and Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes and a couple of others are subjected to never-ending vitriol from self-appointed guardians of Republican orthodoxy for the heresy of being dedicated public servants.
In their cases, a "dedicated public servant" is someone who works for his/her constituents, sometimes protecting their interests over those out-of-state corporations (a post on Mayes doing just that here); sometimes they upset their Republican colleagues by occasionally working with (horrors!) Democrats on issues that generate support across partisan lines.
Unlike good conservatives like, say.... House Speaker Jim Weiers, who, on an annual basis, refuses to craft a state budget with input from Democratic legislators.
When Republicans look at the hole they're in and admit to themselves that perhaps they aren't striking a chord with the American people, they tend to conclude that the solution is to "get back to basics"; in other words, do more of what isn't working for them now.
As a Democrat, a taxpayer, and a citizen I say this:
Keep digging.
One can cite many reasons for this trend (wholesale corruption, basic incompetence, etc.), but those are just symptoms of their problem. The underlying cause of their fall is the fact that that majority of Republicans, especially the majority of *elected* Republicans, are devoted to serving an idealogy more than their constituents.
This tendency can be seen at all levels of government.
- - In the days, weeks, months and years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Republican government, led by Bush, his Administration and his water-carriers on the Hill (and, unfortunately, aided and abetted by some Democrats) has suspended or blatantly ignored civil rights here and abroad (Gitmo, habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, etc.). However, during the anthrax attacks immediately after 9/11, when it was realized that the main anti-anthrax drug used in the U.S., Cipro, was in critically short supply, the Bush Administration ardently defended the patent of its manufacturer Bayer against calls that the government override the patent because of the public health crisis in order to allow other manufacturers to make a generic version.
- - Lost in the hubbub over John Shadegg's decision to retire and his later (and still ongoing) reconsideration of that decision because of a letter from most of his Republican colleagues in the House is the fact that nothing in the letter talks of how he is a dedicated advocate for CD3, which is, after all, what he was ostensibly hired to be when he was elected.
Instead, the letter raves about what a good and inspirational conservative he is and how his colleagues respect him. The letter closes with the line "[t]he Republican Conference needs
you here, the Conservative Movement needs you here, and the country needs you here."
Sounds like someone who is better qualified to be chair of the Arizona Republican Party or the RNC than CD3's elected representative in Congress.
- - Then, of course, there is everyone's (least) favorite anti-immigrant bigot, State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-LD18).
Not only does he gleefully push for harsh laws that destroy families, many of which live in his district, all in the name of his ideology of national 'purity,' he's extending his contempt for his constituents with bills like the one to repeal the state equalization property tax (HB2220), a direct attack on public education or the one to redirect state-shared revenue funds from municipalities to private land owners (HB2641). [Note: An EV Tribune story on this phenomenon here.]
His disdain for his constituents and his district is nothing new, as documented in this 2006 post about a candidate forum in Mesa.
A forum that Pearce blew off to spend time with J.D. Hayworth (a fellow traveler in the anti-immigrant bigot crowd) at a meeting of the LD18 Reps.
Pearce also likes to pimp...errr..."promote" bill ideas from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a front group for right-wing corporate interests while at the same time he disparages the City of Mesa's desire to protect state-shared revenue as part of its legislative agenda for the year.
From the EV Trib in November -
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said that cities and towns have refused to participate in past tax reduction efforts, “so it’s hard to be real sympathetic.”
Pearce is chairman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.
When it comes to cutting spending, Pearce said the state constitution states an obligation to public safety, education and transportation.
In short, his district only matters to him so long it follows his ideology; when there is a separation between his ideology and his district's needs, he throws his district under the bus.
- - Even when Republicans criticize other Reps, it's always for not being "conservative enough", never for failing to represent their constituents.
...John McCain with his 82%+ lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is on the receiving end of harsh criticisms from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and even some Arizona LDs. They call him too 'liberal.'
82% from the ACU? He's not even 'moderate', much less liberal.
...Here in AZ, Republicans like State Senator Carolyn Allen, State Representative Bill Konopnicki, and Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes and a couple of others are subjected to never-ending vitriol from self-appointed guardians of Republican orthodoxy for the heresy of being dedicated public servants.
In their cases, a "dedicated public servant" is someone who works for his/her constituents, sometimes protecting their interests over those out-of-state corporations (a post on Mayes doing just that here); sometimes they upset their Republican colleagues by occasionally working with (horrors!) Democrats on issues that generate support across partisan lines.
Unlike good conservatives like, say.... House Speaker Jim Weiers, who, on an annual basis, refuses to craft a state budget with input from Democratic legislators.
When Republicans look at the hole they're in and admit to themselves that perhaps they aren't striking a chord with the American people, they tend to conclude that the solution is to "get back to basics"; in other words, do more of what isn't working for them now.
As a Democrat, a taxpayer, and a citizen I say this:
Keep digging.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sunday Morning Crappie
The idea for this was blatantly, shamelessly, and gratefully stolen from Desert Beacon's "Sunday Deck Bass" series...thanks DB!
This intermittent series will highlight those politicos, mostly but not exclusively Arizona-based, who flip-flop on significant issues, much like a fish does after being reeled into the bottom of the boat.
I've wanted to do something like this for a while and was searching for a title. Not being schooled in the finer points of fishing in Arizona, I asked a coworker about which species of fish was Arizona known for.
Her first choice, bass, was already taken by DB.
Her second choice was crappie.
It was obvious that the gods of snarkiness were smiling upon me. :))
Oh, for those of you whose minds are in the toilet, she pronounced the word "craw-pee."
Anyway, on to this week's award for sometimes convenient, frequently creative, and always astounding flip-flopping.
3rd Place goes to Harold Ickes, senior adviser to the Clinton for President campaign. A few months ago, he supported the DNC's move to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates because those states decided to hold their primaries before February 5.
However, now that his candidate is in the fight of her political life and needs every delegate she can lay her hands on, he wants the DNC to seat the delegates from those states.
His stated reason for this is pure - he doesn't want to see the voters in those states "disenfranchised."
Of course, the fact that his candidate won the primaries in both states (she was the only major candidate even on the ballot in Michigan) has nothing to do with it.
Story: AP via Yahoo! News.
2nd Place goes to Arizona Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ3) for first announcing his retirement from Congress (citing family reasons) before reconsidering his decision (citing a letter from his Republican colleagues in the House.)
He may be the #2 Crappie, but he's the #1 tease - State Sens. Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring were both considering runs at the CD3 seat, but now their announcements are on hold, waiting for Shadegg to make a final decision.
Well, "final" until he changes it.
Both Ickes and Shadegg made strong runs at this week's award, but the winner, in a near walk-over, is Arizona Senator and Republican presidential front-runner John McCain.
McCain, a former prisoner of war, victim of torture and long-time opponent of torture voted this week against banning the torture technique of waterboarding.
I'm torn between closing this with "Torture - McCain was against it before he was for it" and "John McCain on torture: 'bad when it's applied to me; good when it's applied to the rest of you saps.' "
Whatthehell - why not use both?
Later!
Short Attention Span Musing
...The forces of ignorance and bigotry are rejoicing tonight...
From the AZ Republic -
Wonder how much Kavanagh is going to revere the "will of the voters" when he votes on bills like HCR2066 and HCR2044, both of which would allow to lege to override the "will of the voters" under certain circumstances, as determined by the legislature itself.
...Does this mean that Bob Lord gets to call John Shadegg a 'flip-flopper'???
From the East Valley Tribune -
From the Houston Chronicle -
What the hell, it's not like anyone expected him to endorse Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton...
From the AZ Republic -
A controversial scholarship that benefited Arizona State University students who are in the country illegally has quietly faded away.
As many as 200 students who graduated from Arizona high schools received the private scholarship money through the university this year.
But now, the money is spent, and ASU is advising students who depended on it to "seek private funding sources."
{snip}
State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is thrilled ASU will no longer be providing money to these students.
"The university should never have been complicit in bypassing the will of the voters," Kavanagh said. Prop. 300 passed in 2006 with the support of nearly seven out of 10 voters. "They were giving tuition breaks to illegal immigrants."
Wonder how much Kavanagh is going to revere the "will of the voters" when he votes on bills like HCR2066 and HCR2044, both of which would allow to lege to override the "will of the voters" under certain circumstances, as determined by the legislature itself.
...Does this mean that Bob Lord gets to call John Shadegg a 'flip-flopper'???
From the East Valley Tribune -
U.S. Rep. John Shadegg said Thursday he will reconsider his decision to retire at the end of his term....Breaking news: One rich, old, white Republican male endorses another rich, old, white Republican male.
He began wavering after learning that more than half of the Republicans in the House have signed a letter asking him to stay. Shadegg, 58, unexpectedly announced his retirement Monday.
From the Houston Chronicle -
GOP presidential front-runner John McCain is continuing to sweep up establishment Republican support as former President George H.W. Bush is expected to endorse the Arizona senator Monday in Houston.
What the hell, it's not like anyone expected him to endorse Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Local election financial reports
Much like the higher-profile candidates for Congress, candidates for local office have to meet financial reporting requirements.
Scottsdale -
An overview of reports for October 2006 - December 2007, due January 31, 2008:
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky - Filed her organizational paperwork on January 29, 2008; no financial reports due yet.
Joel Bramoweth - total raised $21,273, cash on hand $12,853, candidate loans to campaign $8000; interesting contributors - former council member Kevin Osterman ($200).
Betty Drake - No activity.
Suzanne Klapp - total raised $6865, cash on hand $6753, candidate loan $5000; interesting contributors - Donna Reagan, mother of State Rep. Michelle Reagan (R-LD8) and former LD8 Republican chair ($390), Joel Bramoweth, candidate for City Council ($50).
Ron McCullagh - total raised $23590, cash on hand $16881; interesting contributors - Virginia Korte, Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce ($390), Jim Pederson, developer and 2006 candidate for U.S. Senate ($390).
Richard Mueller - total raised $40.33, cash on hand $25. All funds from self.
Nan Nesvig - total raised $2568, cash on hand $1721; interesting contributions - Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor ($390), Bob Littlefield, member of the City Council ($390), Tony Nelssen, member of the City Council ($100).
Candidates for mayor -
Jim Derouin - total raised $2500, cash on hand $2390, candidate loan $2500. Has withrawn from the race.
Jim Lane - total raised $7725, cash on hand $7521; interesting contributors - Henry Becker, local, somewhat legendary, thorn in the side of the Council ($390), Jim Bruner, former Maricopa County Supervisor ($250).
Mary Manross - total raised $4552, cash on hand $2940.
Notes:
Nothing too surprising here yet - obviously, Mr. Mueller is going to have to step up fundraising to have an impact in this race. Of course, his lack of funds is balanced by McCullagh and Bramoweth's full coffers.
Other candidates could still enter the races (though another entry into the mayoral contest would be something of a surprise). Nominating petitions are due June 4, 2008.
Scottsdale's campaign finance reports can be found here.
Deadline for the next report - June 30, 2008, covering the period from January 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008.
Tempe -
January 31 reports...
Mayor -
Hugh Hallman - total raised $79152, cash on hand $23906; interesting contributors - Jeff Hatch-Miller, formerly with the AZ Corporation Commission and current candidate for Congress ($390). There were probably others, but there were too many pages to go through for a race I can't vote in. :)
City Council -
Hut Hutson - total raised $56055, cash on hand $52302.
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes - total raised $3744, cash on hand $3440.
Julie Jakubek - total raised $1815, cash on hand $524, candidate loan $1000.
Mark Mitchell - total raised $30034, cash on hand $40433.
Joel Navarro - total raised $28899, cash on hand $23033.
Rhett Wilson - total raised $12080, cash on hand $3524.
Corey Woods - total raised $24877, cash on hand $9207.
Notes:
In Tempe, early balloting has already started; the election is March 11, 2008. The runoff/general election is scheduled for May 20, 2008 (if necessary.)
Tempe's campaign finance reports can be found here.
Later!
Scottsdale -
An overview of reports for October 2006 - December 2007, due January 31, 2008:
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky - Filed her organizational paperwork on January 29, 2008; no financial reports due yet.
Joel Bramoweth - total raised $21,273, cash on hand $12,853, candidate loans to campaign $8000; interesting contributors - former council member Kevin Osterman ($200).
Betty Drake - No activity.
Suzanne Klapp - total raised $6865, cash on hand $6753, candidate loan $5000; interesting contributors - Donna Reagan, mother of State Rep. Michelle Reagan (R-LD8) and former LD8 Republican chair ($390), Joel Bramoweth, candidate for City Council ($50).
Ron McCullagh - total raised $23590, cash on hand $16881; interesting contributors - Virginia Korte, Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce ($390), Jim Pederson, developer and 2006 candidate for U.S. Senate ($390).
Richard Mueller - total raised $40.33, cash on hand $25. All funds from self.
Nan Nesvig - total raised $2568, cash on hand $1721; interesting contributions - Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor ($390), Bob Littlefield, member of the City Council ($390), Tony Nelssen, member of the City Council ($100).
Candidates for mayor -
Jim Derouin - total raised $2500, cash on hand $2390, candidate loan $2500. Has withrawn from the race.
Jim Lane - total raised $7725, cash on hand $7521; interesting contributors - Henry Becker, local, somewhat legendary, thorn in the side of the Council ($390), Jim Bruner, former Maricopa County Supervisor ($250).
Mary Manross - total raised $4552, cash on hand $2940.
Notes:
Nothing too surprising here yet - obviously, Mr. Mueller is going to have to step up fundraising to have an impact in this race. Of course, his lack of funds is balanced by McCullagh and Bramoweth's full coffers.
Other candidates could still enter the races (though another entry into the mayoral contest would be something of a surprise). Nominating petitions are due June 4, 2008.
Scottsdale's campaign finance reports can be found here.
Deadline for the next report - June 30, 2008, covering the period from January 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008.
Tempe -
January 31 reports...
Mayor -
Hugh Hallman - total raised $79152, cash on hand $23906; interesting contributors - Jeff Hatch-Miller, formerly with the AZ Corporation Commission and current candidate for Congress ($390). There were probably others, but there were too many pages to go through for a race I can't vote in. :)
City Council -
Hut Hutson - total raised $56055, cash on hand $52302.
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes - total raised $3744, cash on hand $3440.
Julie Jakubek - total raised $1815, cash on hand $524, candidate loan $1000.
Mark Mitchell - total raised $30034, cash on hand $40433.
Joel Navarro - total raised $28899, cash on hand $23033.
Rhett Wilson - total raised $12080, cash on hand $3524.
Corey Woods - total raised $24877, cash on hand $9207.
Notes:
In Tempe, early balloting has already started; the election is March 11, 2008. The runoff/general election is scheduled for May 20, 2008 (if necessary.)
Tempe's campaign finance reports can be found here.
Later!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Events Calendar
Saturday, February 16 - A Democratic "Day of Action"/Campaign Kick-Off House Party at the home of State Representative David Schapira. After a day of walking, knocking, talking and registering voters, join David and his seatmate, Rep. Ed Ableser, at the party that kicks off their re-election campaign.
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Place: 3633 S. Hazelton Ln., Tempe, AZ 85282
Note - for info on D17 Day of Action activities, contact LD17 Chair Doug Mings at dougmings[at]gmail.com.
Tuesday, February 19 - Monthly meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Democratic Jewish Council. A Democratic candidate TBD will be the featured speaker.
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Country Inn Suites, 89th Place and Shea, Scottsdale
Thursday, February 21 - The Big Picture Film Series presents the documentary "Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore?". Join David Malsch, the LD17 Democrats, LD18 Democrats, and the ASU Young Dems in watching this fast-paced, engaging, and enlightening look at the 2006 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat waged by supreme underdog Jeff Smith.
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: ASU's Coor Building, Room 170
975 S. Myrtle Ave., Tempe
Admission: Free, open to the public
Thursday, February 21 - At its regular meeting, Scottsdale's Transportation Commission will consider, and seek public input on, future route expansions for Scottsdale's Neighborhood Connector Trolley service. The Neighborhood Connector Trolley serves south Scottsdale, and the proposed expansions are also in south Scottsdale.
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: City Hall Kiva
3939 Drinkwater Blvd., Scottsdale
Friday, February 29 - Join Congressman Harry Mitchell for the LD17 Fundraiser and Party celebrating that, for the first time, Democrats outnumber Republicans in D17!
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: The home of Lauren and Mike Kuby
109 E. Loma Vista Dr., Tempe
(Click here for a map)
Donation: $25 ($15 for Young Dems); Click here to donate, and then email Lauren at laurenkuby[at]gmail.com to let her know that you paid online.
Saturday, March 1 - MCDP County Convention
Time: Training sessions start at 9:00 a.m.; the meeting starts at 1:00 p.m.
Location: Plumbers and Steamfitters Union
3109 North 24th Street, Phoenix
Sunday, March 9 - D8 Fundraiser at Ostrovsky’s Fine Art Gallery. Join Congressman Harry Mitchell and the LD8 Democrats for an afternoon of Art, Jazz, and Political Talk.
Time: 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Place: 7048 E. Main St., Scottsdale
Donation: $35
Info: phone (480) 596-8350 or email d8office[at]d8dems.phxcoxmail.com
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Place: 3633 S. Hazelton Ln., Tempe, AZ 85282
Note - for info on D17 Day of Action activities, contact LD17 Chair Doug Mings at dougmings[at]gmail.com.
Tuesday, February 19 - Monthly meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Democratic Jewish Council. A Democratic candidate TBD will be the featured speaker.
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Country Inn Suites, 89th Place and Shea, Scottsdale
Thursday, February 21 - The Big Picture Film Series presents the documentary "Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore?". Join David Malsch, the LD17 Democrats, LD18 Democrats, and the ASU Young Dems in watching this fast-paced, engaging, and enlightening look at the 2006 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat waged by supreme underdog Jeff Smith.
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: ASU's Coor Building, Room 170
975 S. Myrtle Ave., Tempe
Admission: Free, open to the public
Thursday, February 21 - At its regular meeting, Scottsdale's Transportation Commission will consider, and seek public input on, future route expansions for Scottsdale's Neighborhood Connector Trolley service. The Neighborhood Connector Trolley serves south Scottsdale, and the proposed expansions are also in south Scottsdale.
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: City Hall Kiva
3939 Drinkwater Blvd., Scottsdale
Friday, February 29 - Join Congressman Harry Mitchell for the LD17 Fundraiser and Party celebrating that, for the first time, Democrats outnumber Republicans in D17!
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: The home of Lauren and Mike Kuby
109 E. Loma Vista Dr., Tempe
(Click here for a map)
Donation: $25 ($15 for Young Dems); Click here to donate, and then email Lauren at laurenkuby[at]gmail.com to let her know that you paid online.
Saturday, March 1 - MCDP County Convention
Time: Training sessions start at 9:00 a.m.; the meeting starts at 1:00 p.m.
Location: Plumbers and Steamfitters Union
3109 North 24th Street, Phoenix
Sunday, March 9 - D8 Fundraiser at Ostrovsky’s Fine Art Gallery. Join Congressman Harry Mitchell and the LD8 Democrats for an afternoon of Art, Jazz, and Political Talk.
Time: 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Place: 7048 E. Main St., Scottsdale
Donation: $35
Info: phone (480) 596-8350 or email d8office[at]d8dems.phxcoxmail.com
The U.S. House issues contempt citations;
and the House Republicans have a meltdown and abandon the Constitution and their posts.
And they moved to adjourn the House during the memorial service for Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA).
After a rather brief debate (an hour), the House passed H. Res. 982, "Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas."
The motions arise from the White House's assertion of executive privilege in denying Congressional investigators access to documents relevant to the U.S. Attorney firings scandal.
The Republican side of the debate was marked both by protests that the rule under consideration (HRes982) meant that there would be limited debate on the actual contempt motions (HRes979 and HRes980) and by protests that the House was considering this before passage of a FISA update bill (S. 2248).
The Reps claimed that a failure to rush through passage of S2248 (with its retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers) would result in the expiration of the FISA act, leaving America open to terrorist attack.
They lied.
What would expire is nothing more than the Protect America Act that was passed last August (coverage here, here, and here) with its provisions that allow for warrantless electronic surveillance of foreign terror suspects and Americans suspected of being associated with them.
FISA wouldn't be affected (it'll still be in force) and any active investigations engaged in under the August law can continue for a year, even if the law that enabled such investigations does expire.
Anyway, back to the main topic and the reason for the title of this post, after minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke his piece, calling the day's events political grandstanding (among other things), he called on all Republicans in the House to walk out in protest.
In case one thinks that the move was nothing more than an impulsive move borne of frustration with not getting their way, House Republicans walked off the floor, straight into...
...a well-planned press conference on the steps of the Capitol, where they were able to repeat their tale of impending disaster without interference from little things like time limits or opposition.
Perhaps they hope that their flamboyant outrage over the lack of immediate consideration of S2248 would mask the real story of what happened today.
For the first time during the 110th Congress, the House Democrats showed a little spine.
The Republicans' near-total absence from the House floor didn't change the final outcome - the motion passed 223 - 32, with AZ Democratic Reps Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Pastor voting 'aye' and AZ Republican Reps Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg not voting.
The highlight of the debate (such as it was) was when the Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee, quoted a statement from the Congressional Record, dated May 21, 1998 -
The aforementioned John Boehner. :))
AP coverage here.
The Hill's coverage here.
Edit to add the one AZ flavor of the day:
Almost forgot - later in the afternoon, after all votes had been taken and legislative business had been completed, a number of Republicans, including Louis Gohmert, Ted Poe and Tom Price, strode to the well of the House and gave short speeches excoriating the Democrats for failing to pass an extension of the Protect America Act. They were followed immediately by AZ2's own Trent Franks, who spent his time bemoaning
Abortion.
Suggested campaign slogan for Rep. Franks - "Trent Franks - Your One Trick Pony".
End edit...
And they moved to adjourn the House during the memorial service for Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA).
After a rather brief debate (an hour), the House passed H. Res. 982, "Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas."
The motions arise from the White House's assertion of executive privilege in denying Congressional investigators access to documents relevant to the U.S. Attorney firings scandal.
The Republican side of the debate was marked both by protests that the rule under consideration (HRes982) meant that there would be limited debate on the actual contempt motions (HRes979 and HRes980) and by protests that the House was considering this before passage of a FISA update bill (S. 2248).
The Reps claimed that a failure to rush through passage of S2248 (with its retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers) would result in the expiration of the FISA act, leaving America open to terrorist attack.
They lied.
What would expire is nothing more than the Protect America Act that was passed last August (coverage here, here, and here) with its provisions that allow for warrantless electronic surveillance of foreign terror suspects and Americans suspected of being associated with them.
FISA wouldn't be affected (it'll still be in force) and any active investigations engaged in under the August law can continue for a year, even if the law that enabled such investigations does expire.
Anyway, back to the main topic and the reason for the title of this post, after minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke his piece, calling the day's events political grandstanding (among other things), he called on all Republicans in the House to walk out in protest.
In case one thinks that the move was nothing more than an impulsive move borne of frustration with not getting their way, House Republicans walked off the floor, straight into...
...a well-planned press conference on the steps of the Capitol, where they were able to repeat their tale of impending disaster without interference from little things like time limits or opposition.
Perhaps they hope that their flamboyant outrage over the lack of immediate consideration of S2248 would mask the real story of what happened today.
For the first time during the 110th Congress, the House Democrats showed a little spine.
The Republicans' near-total absence from the House floor didn't change the final outcome - the motion passed 223 - 32, with AZ Democratic Reps Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Pastor voting 'aye' and AZ Republican Reps Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg not voting.
The highlight of the debate (such as it was) was when the Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee, quoted a statement from the Congressional Record, dated May 21, 1998 -
Mr. Speaker, the American people have entrusted the President of the United States with many exclusive privileges not available to the average person. Because of the travel demands that he bears as the leader of the free world, he has got the privilege of traveling across the world on Air Force One; because of his need for constant security as the leader of our government, he has the privilege of round-the-clock protection from the Secret Service, even after he leaves office; and because of the need for national security, he is entrusted with a special privilege, probably more sacred than any of these, and that is executive privilege.The Congresscritter who proclaimed such reverence for open government, the rule of law, and the Constitution and its checks and balances?
Let us be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has the right to claim executive privilege in matters of national security. But no one has the privilege of being above the law; not Members of this House, not Members of the other body, not even the Chief Executive of the United States of America. But it seems that this important privilege is being used to block the people's right to know on a much broader range of issues.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a pattern developing in the Executive Branch. While reassuring the public that they are anxious to get to the truth, certain officials have consistently stood in the way of legitimate legal inquiries into activities of our government at the White House.
Just yesterday, in fact, a White House spokesman bluntly claimed that the administration has fully cooperated with Congressional questions about these very troubling technology transfers to China. It was a reassuring thing to hear, but it just was not true.
Congressional leaders from the Committee on National Security and from the Committee on International Relations have written the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Director of the U.S. Arms Control Agency, and the chairman of the Committee on Intelligence wrote to the Secretary of Defense as well. Our Committee on Science, both Democrats and Republicans, have raised the issue of China with NASA. Even a letter sent to the President by the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate has fallen on defense ears. To date, all of these requests have been met with either silence or reassurance. But all requests for information have been denied.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is the same; the American people are denied the right to know what is going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what happens in their government.
This government does not belong to politicians in Washington D.C. This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what is going on in their White House.
I think the stonewalling should end, and the cooperating and the truth needs to be discovered.
The aforementioned John Boehner. :))
AP coverage here.
The Hill's coverage here.
Edit to add the one AZ flavor of the day:
Almost forgot - later in the afternoon, after all votes had been taken and legislative business had been completed, a number of Republicans, including Louis Gohmert, Ted Poe and Tom Price, strode to the well of the House and gave short speeches excoriating the Democrats for failing to pass an extension of the Protect America Act. They were followed immediately by AZ2's own Trent Franks, who spent his time bemoaning
Abortion.
Suggested campaign slogan for Rep. Franks - "Trent Franks - Your One Trick Pony".
End edit...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Dilemmas, dilemmas
...the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, or something that came out of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee...hmmm....
Tomorrow (ok, probably later today as you read this), the Arizona House of Representatives' Committee on Judiciary will be considering the latest attempt at a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, HCR2065.
Think of it as a Republican valentine to the socially ultra-conservative wing of the GOP.
The outcome of the hearing isn't in doubt - all six Republican members of the committee (Farnsworth, Driggs, Yarbrough, Konopnicki, Crandall, Adams) have signed on as sponsors or cosponsors of the bill.
In short, the final vote count won't be any closer than 6 - 4 favoring passage, assuming all committee members are in attendance.
I'm considering attending, if only to get some good quotes.
However, earlier this evening, I found out that the U.S. House is slated to consider contempt of Congress citations for White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.
Think of it as a Congressional valentine to Bush. :)
Now *that* should be a fun debate; lots of good quotes, too. :))
The big difference is that there is a bit of doubt as to the outcome - some, including me, question whether certain House Democrats (think Blue Dogs) have the political spine necessary to do the right thing.
So the dilemma is: go to a suspense-free hearing to watch some local Republicans work some of their election-year mischief (mischief that may backfire on them, but more on that at a later date, like after this is officially on the fall ballot), or stay home and watch some DC Republicans (and Republicans-lite) try to defend the Bush administration's open contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Note: The U.S. House's Judiciary Committee's report is here. I haven't read all of it, and I'm not going to - it's 862 pages long.
As you can tell from the phrasing in the above paragraph, I'm leaning toward watching the DC mess unfold.
The local Republicans are going to be rambunctious all year - it's an election year and they want to distract voters from the fact that they are doing as little as possible to responsibly balance the state's budget.
Note: Russell Pearce's plans to balance the budget by gutting KidsCare, AHCCCS, higher education, and K-12 school construction while blanketly gutting state revenue yet again doesn't qualify as 'responsible.'
'Ideological', but not 'responsible.'
Anyway, there's going to be plenty of opportunities for good quotes down at the state lege.
On the other hand, an actual debate and vote on contempt citations by the U.S. House could be one of the highlights of the year in DC.
After writing all of this down and looking at it, it's a pretty easy choice.
Later!
Tomorrow (ok, probably later today as you read this), the Arizona House of Representatives' Committee on Judiciary will be considering the latest attempt at a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, HCR2065.
Think of it as a Republican valentine to the socially ultra-conservative wing of the GOP.
The outcome of the hearing isn't in doubt - all six Republican members of the committee (Farnsworth, Driggs, Yarbrough, Konopnicki, Crandall, Adams) have signed on as sponsors or cosponsors of the bill.
In short, the final vote count won't be any closer than 6 - 4 favoring passage, assuming all committee members are in attendance.
I'm considering attending, if only to get some good quotes.
However, earlier this evening, I found out that the U.S. House is slated to consider contempt of Congress citations for White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.
Think of it as a Congressional valentine to Bush. :)
Now *that* should be a fun debate; lots of good quotes, too. :))
The big difference is that there is a bit of doubt as to the outcome - some, including me, question whether certain House Democrats (think Blue Dogs) have the political spine necessary to do the right thing.
So the dilemma is: go to a suspense-free hearing to watch some local Republicans work some of their election-year mischief (mischief that may backfire on them, but more on that at a later date, like after this is officially on the fall ballot), or stay home and watch some DC Republicans (and Republicans-lite) try to defend the Bush administration's open contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Note: The U.S. House's Judiciary Committee's report is here. I haven't read all of it, and I'm not going to - it's 862 pages long.
As you can tell from the phrasing in the above paragraph, I'm leaning toward watching the DC mess unfold.
The local Republicans are going to be rambunctious all year - it's an election year and they want to distract voters from the fact that they are doing as little as possible to responsibly balance the state's budget.
Note: Russell Pearce's plans to balance the budget by gutting KidsCare, AHCCCS, higher education, and K-12 school construction while blanketly gutting state revenue yet again doesn't qualify as 'responsible.'
'Ideological', but not 'responsible.'
Anyway, there's going to be plenty of opportunities for good quotes down at the state lege.
On the other hand, an actual debate and vote on contempt citations by the U.S. House could be one of the highlights of the year in DC.
After writing all of this down and looking at it, it's a pretty easy choice.
Later!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Supermarket management - defending Scottsdale's (and America's) sensibilities...
Non-political post ahead...
Yesterday, while going thru checkout at my local Fry's, I was asked for ID to verify that I was old enough to purchase an item that I had selected.
Was it cold medicine with pseudoephedrine? Nope, I don't have a cold or the flu (and apparently, I'm one of the few in Arizona who can say that. :) )
Was it cigarettes? Nope, I don't smoke.
Was it booze? Nope, I *do* drink, but do so very infrequently.
No, it wasn't any of those obvious choices.
So what was the item that so threatens the health and welfare of Arizona's children that I had to prove I was of age before the vigilant store management at the local Fry's supermarket would allow me to purchase it?
A freakin' Three Stooges DVD!!
I'm glad they were only concerned with chronological age, because if I had to prove sufficient emotional maturity if would have been more difficult, given that I was purchasing a freakin' Three Stooges DVD!!
:))
Later!
Yesterday, while going thru checkout at my local Fry's, I was asked for ID to verify that I was old enough to purchase an item that I had selected.
Was it cold medicine with pseudoephedrine? Nope, I don't have a cold or the flu (and apparently, I'm one of the few in Arizona who can say that. :) )
Was it cigarettes? Nope, I don't smoke.
Was it booze? Nope, I *do* drink, but do so very infrequently.
No, it wasn't any of those obvious choices.
So what was the item that so threatens the health and welfare of Arizona's children that I had to prove I was of age before the vigilant store management at the local Fry's supermarket would allow me to purchase it?
A freakin' Three Stooges DVD!!
I'm glad they were only concerned with chronological age, because if I had to prove sufficient emotional maturity if would have been more difficult, given that I was purchasing a freakin' Three Stooges DVD!!
:))
Later!
Shadegg caves to blogger criticism, announces retirement*
* = OK, his announcement probably has absolutely nothing to do with some of the recent criticisms that I've directed at him (here, here, and here).
It was still fun to write that headline. :))
On to the story, with a little bit of wild speculation added...
From the Arizona Republic -
Stacy at Arizona Congress Watch has the entire statement.
While speculation as to Shadegg's motivation for this announcement in the AZ blogosphere has run the gamut from "the ethics questions" (funnelling $10K from his leadership PAC to his campaign coffers) to "After 14 years in the Congress he's tired; too tired to keep dealing with being part of the minority caucus."
Others take a more practical view, wondering if Shadegg's move is a coordinated gambit with John McCain, with McCain resigning from his Senate seat and Shadegg running for that in the fall.
[Start wild speculation]
I'm leaning that way, just because it makes too much sense tactically -
1. Resigning from the Senate allows McCain to focus on running for President while the Democratic nominee (either Obama or Clinton) still has to jump off of the campaign trail to return to work. It also silences those (like me!) who have criticized McCain for all of the votes that he has missed.
2. By resigning now, it forces an election for the Senate seat on the fall ballot. If John McCain vacated his seat after winning the Presidency, that would give whoever Governor Napolitano appointed to the position two years to settle into the job, and while she would have to select a Republican, you can bet that one person she wouldn't select would be McCain's personally-annointed successor. This move would stop a Republican who is less partisan or more constituent-oriented than Shadegg from settling into the Senate seat and frustrating Republican Party "movers and shakers" (aka - insider wingnuts) in their efforts to get one of their own in the slot.
3. Shadegg is already perfectly positioned for a short campaign for Senate - he's got high name recognition, and nearly a million dollars in the bank already. No Republican or Democrat is set up for a statewide race this cycle.
Ways that this could hurt the Arizona Republicans:
1. The CD3 seat is now an 'open' one. Given the Rep registration advantage in the district (~50K), even in the face of Bob Lord's strong challenge, Shadegg was likely to retain his seat. Now it's all up in the air. While it's still early in the year, Lord has his campaign up and running smoothly; Republican candidates will be scrambling to put something together.
2. The names of a number of sitting state legislators have been floated as possible successors, including State Rep. Jim Weiers (speaker of the AZ House) and State Sen. Jim Waring.
The Republicans are faced with trying to retain control of the state lege in the face of voters' growing disenchantment with the way that the Reps have been doing things and in the face of a shrinking registration advantage. Their efforts at playing defense will be boosted by the presence of John McCain at the top of the ticket (higher Rep turnout to support their 'favorite son'). However, those same efforts will be undermined if a number of their legislative veterans pass on lege races to focus on a shot at moving up. Their bench strength will be sorely tested by having to defend an unexpectedly high number of open seats.
Note: I hope Weiers goes for it - even the worst case scenario for Democrats is an improvement for the state. If he goes for the CD3 seat, the best that can happen for him is that he wins the seat and goes from being a big fish in a small pond (Speaker of the AZ House) to being a small fish in a big pond (junior member of the minority caucus in the U.S. House.) And win or lose, if he goes for it, he's out of the AZ House and the state budget becomes that much easier to balance without his obstructionism.
Solving a second state budget crisis would give Governor Napolitano a huge boost in her (expected) run for the seat currently held by McCain in 2010.
Other speculation -
Of course, speculation that this is part of a coordinated move with McCain can only be fueled by the amount of time that Shadegg has spent campaigning for McCain, especially in South Carolina. Shadegg is one of the (many!) reasons that the McCain presidential campaign has been resurrected, going from "DOA" last year to "presumptive nominee" this year.
Another sign that this move may have been in the works for a while - at one point (many months ago), Sean Noble, Shadegg's chief of staff and likely candidate to replace Shadegg, was rumored to be interested in running against Democrat Harry Mitchell in CD5. Without much fanfare at the time, he declined to run in CD5. Could this plan have been simmering even then? Let's face facts - Shadegg will support Noble in any primary. In CD5, that wouldn't mean much; in CD3, it could put Noble over the top.
[End wild speculation]
Politicker AZ has all sorts of coverage of this at their site.
Greg at Espresso Pundit has an open thread for speculation on which Reps will run for Shadegg's seat here.
Tony C. at Wactivist has a speculation thread here; this one concerns the likelihood of Shadegg running for John McCain's U.S. Senate seat in the event of his resignation in order to focus on his campaign for President.
Most other AZ blogs (Dem and Rep) have something on this story (hey - it *is* the biggest news of the AZ campaign season thus far.)
It was still fun to write that headline. :))
On to the story, with a little bit of wild speculation added...
From the Arizona Republic -
Arizona Rep. Shadegg won't seek re-election to Congress
WASHINGTON - Saying he never intended to be a professional politician, Arizona Rep. John Shadegg announced Monday that he will not seek re-election to an eighth term in Congress.
Shadegg, who just weeks ago spoke confidently about his ability to win another term, said his decision was a personal one and was not spurred by concerns over his health or fear that he could lose his seat in November.
“The bottom line is that this is a personal decision between my family and me, about our dreams, goals, and ambitions,” he said in a statement.
Stacy at Arizona Congress Watch has the entire statement.
While speculation as to Shadegg's motivation for this announcement in the AZ blogosphere has run the gamut from "the ethics questions" (funnelling $10K from his leadership PAC to his campaign coffers) to "After 14 years in the Congress he's tired; too tired to keep dealing with being part of the minority caucus."
Others take a more practical view, wondering if Shadegg's move is a coordinated gambit with John McCain, with McCain resigning from his Senate seat and Shadegg running for that in the fall.
[Start wild speculation]
I'm leaning that way, just because it makes too much sense tactically -
1. Resigning from the Senate allows McCain to focus on running for President while the Democratic nominee (either Obama or Clinton) still has to jump off of the campaign trail to return to work. It also silences those (like me!) who have criticized McCain for all of the votes that he has missed.
2. By resigning now, it forces an election for the Senate seat on the fall ballot. If John McCain vacated his seat after winning the Presidency, that would give whoever Governor Napolitano appointed to the position two years to settle into the job, and while she would have to select a Republican, you can bet that one person she wouldn't select would be McCain's personally-annointed successor. This move would stop a Republican who is less partisan or more constituent-oriented than Shadegg from settling into the Senate seat and frustrating Republican Party "movers and shakers" (aka - insider wingnuts) in their efforts to get one of their own in the slot.
3. Shadegg is already perfectly positioned for a short campaign for Senate - he's got high name recognition, and nearly a million dollars in the bank already. No Republican or Democrat is set up for a statewide race this cycle.
Ways that this could hurt the Arizona Republicans:
1. The CD3 seat is now an 'open' one. Given the Rep registration advantage in the district (~50K), even in the face of Bob Lord's strong challenge, Shadegg was likely to retain his seat. Now it's all up in the air. While it's still early in the year, Lord has his campaign up and running smoothly; Republican candidates will be scrambling to put something together.
2. The names of a number of sitting state legislators have been floated as possible successors, including State Rep. Jim Weiers (speaker of the AZ House) and State Sen. Jim Waring.
The Republicans are faced with trying to retain control of the state lege in the face of voters' growing disenchantment with the way that the Reps have been doing things and in the face of a shrinking registration advantage. Their efforts at playing defense will be boosted by the presence of John McCain at the top of the ticket (higher Rep turnout to support their 'favorite son'). However, those same efforts will be undermined if a number of their legislative veterans pass on lege races to focus on a shot at moving up. Their bench strength will be sorely tested by having to defend an unexpectedly high number of open seats.
Note: I hope Weiers goes for it - even the worst case scenario for Democrats is an improvement for the state. If he goes for the CD3 seat, the best that can happen for him is that he wins the seat and goes from being a big fish in a small pond (Speaker of the AZ House) to being a small fish in a big pond (junior member of the minority caucus in the U.S. House.) And win or lose, if he goes for it, he's out of the AZ House and the state budget becomes that much easier to balance without his obstructionism.
Solving a second state budget crisis would give Governor Napolitano a huge boost in her (expected) run for the seat currently held by McCain in 2010.
Other speculation -
Of course, speculation that this is part of a coordinated move with McCain can only be fueled by the amount of time that Shadegg has spent campaigning for McCain, especially in South Carolina. Shadegg is one of the (many!) reasons that the McCain presidential campaign has been resurrected, going from "DOA" last year to "presumptive nominee" this year.
Another sign that this move may have been in the works for a while - at one point (many months ago), Sean Noble, Shadegg's chief of staff and likely candidate to replace Shadegg, was rumored to be interested in running against Democrat Harry Mitchell in CD5. Without much fanfare at the time, he declined to run in CD5. Could this plan have been simmering even then? Let's face facts - Shadegg will support Noble in any primary. In CD5, that wouldn't mean much; in CD3, it could put Noble over the top.
[End wild speculation]
Politicker AZ has all sorts of coverage of this at their site.
Greg at Espresso Pundit has an open thread for speculation on which Reps will run for Shadegg's seat here.
Tony C. at Wactivist has a speculation thread here; this one concerns the likelihood of Shadegg running for John McCain's U.S. Senate seat in the event of his resignation in order to focus on his campaign for President.
Most other AZ blogs (Dem and Rep) have something on this story (hey - it *is* the biggest news of the AZ campaign season thus far.)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Guest Column - right-wing smears of Democratic presidential candidates
In something of a coincidence, on the same day when I spent some time speaking to a coworker, trying to dispel some of the smears that are going around about Senator Barack Obama, I received this email, forwarded by Jerry Gettinger, president of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC).
It is reprinted with permission. I've made a few formatting corrections to improve readability (for some reason, most apostrophes and hyphens came through as some weird symbol - ý.)
____________________________________________________________________
Dear Jerry:
They are at it again. You may have already received a few bogus emails making false claims about Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The Right Wing Smear Machine is back, and they are starting early, hoping to use the Big Lie to undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.
In 2004, as you will recall, right wingers spread lies about Democratic nominee John Kerry. They lied about his outstanding service in Vietnam and started a word-of-mouth campaign in the Jewish community with a lie about his wife supporting Hamas. Likewise, the amount of misinformation the Right Wing spread about President Clinton and Vice President Gore is almost too numerous to recount.
This year, NJDC is determined to give our activists the tools to fight back ý and to fight back early. In this email, I have enclosed information that counters some specific charges that have been levied against Senators Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Please help us make it "viral" by forwarding it to friends, family, neighbors and colleagues.
In the coming days, NJDC will send around a printable fact-sheet [Note: that fact sheet is here.] on where the major Democratic candidates stand on Middle East issues.
***
Senator Obama
We have received several reports about dishonest emails circulating about Senator Obama, aimed at Jewish voters. The fact of the matter is, Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish Community. He is very popular in the Chicago Jewish Community (one of the most vibrant centers of Jewish life in the nation) and has made courting Jewish votes a priority in his presidential campaign. A recent profile about Senator Obama in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency explained: "What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator, who made history Thursday by winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa, has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career." (Click here for the full article.)
Some of the viral emails sent out about Obama claim that the Senator is anti-Israel. Such charges are off-base. Like the other Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has never cast a vote against the position of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shmuel Rosner, the U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes that Senator Obama "is pro-Israel. Period." (Click here to read his entire blog post about Obama.)
Senator Obama told the audience at NJDC's 2007 Washington Conference, "When I am President, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in search of this peace, and in defense against those who seek its destruction." (Click here for a transcript and here for video.) Likewise, in March 2007, Senator Obama told an AIPAC audience in Chicago that he believes the U.S. must have "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point" in approaching Middle East policy. Continued Obama: "And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."
Senator Obama has been endorsed by several prominent supporters of Israel, including Jewish Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, who wrote: "What has always struck me about Senator Obama - and this is one of the reasons I have endorsed his candidacy for the United States Presidency - is that a love for Israel and a desire to keep the Jewish people secure is evident not just in his work, but also in his heart." Another prominent supporter of Israel, distinguished financier Lester Crown, wrote: "As president, [Obama] will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House - stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." (More coverage of Crown's endorsement and support for Obama in the Jewish community is available on the Haaretz blog, here.)
The New York Sun - hardly a bastion of support for Democrats - editorialized: "We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans [who questioned the Senatorýs support for Israel] haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America."
It is also worth noting that Senator Obama is an outspoken critic of Iran, who wrote legislation to make it easier for states to divest from Iranian holdings. (The legislation is being blocked by a Republican Senator.)
Another Republican smear campaign falsely claims Senator Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa - a blatant lie. While Senator Obama's religion - he is Christian - should not matter in the Presidential election, setting the facts straight is important. We've seen terrible fear mongering by the right wing in the form of baseless attacks against Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, a good public servant and a friend of Israel and the Jewish Community. Similar attacks seem to be sprouting up against Senator Obama although he is Christian.
If a friend or neighbor asks you about an email or internet rumor regarding Senator Obamaýs religious upbringing, here are some important things to tell him/her:
(1) CNN reports "Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ýmadrassaý are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." The complete report is available online here in a report entitled "CNN debunks false report about Obama."
(2) The false "madrassa" rumors were published in a right wing smear magazine owned by the same company that owns the ultra-conservative Washington Times. These are the same people who have printed numerous falsehoods about the Clintons through the years.
(3) The Obama campaign has a fact sheet on its website which serves as an excellent resource about his background and sets the record straight about his religion. While Obama's religion should not be a political issue, lying about a candidate's religion is noteworthy. The fact sheet explains that, despite lies saying otherwise, Obama "is not and has never been a Muslim." The fact sheet is available here.
Scurrilous emails have also been circulating which attempt to smear Senator Obama because a magazine associated with his church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. In the response to inquiries about Farrakhan, Obama repudiated and decried Farrakhan and his anti-Semitism. He was praised by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for so-doing.
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman released a statement saying: "We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan. Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."
Newsweek debunked other falsehoods about Senator Obamaýs church, in an article posted at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424/output/print
The rhetoric in some of these viral emails about Obama is so over the top, that yesterday several leaders of national Jewish organizations signed on to a letter condemning the smear campaign being run against him. The signatories represent non-partisan organizations which do not endorse political candidates. In the letter, they wrote: "Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama's religious beliefs and who he is as a person" and "These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates."
The signatories include William Daroff of United Jewish Communities, Nathan J. Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Abraham Foxman of Anti-Defamation League, Richard S. Gordon of the American Jewish Congress, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Phyllis Snyder of the National Council of Jewish Women and Hadar Susskind of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
The letter can be viewed here.
Senator Clinton
Senator Hillary Clinton has long been a target for distortion, despite her outstanding record on issues ranging from education, to health care, to support for Israel. Despite her strong commitment to Israel and close kinship with the Jewish Community (a key reason she is tremendously popular with her New York constituents), right wing smears against her leadership continue.
Giuliani advisor Martin Kramer, for instance, wrote a disingenuous piece in the Jerusalem Post claiming that Senator Clinton's rhetoric on Israel contains code words hinting that she is not really a true friend of Israel. Of course there was no logic to anything he wrote, not a surprise given that Senator Clinton has worked overtime in support of Israel in the Senate.
I wrote an op-ed responding to Mr. Kramer, which is available on our blog, here. I would recommend sending these paragraphs to anyone who is tempted to believe a right wing smear of the Senator and her support for the Jewish state:
Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel's strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.
If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one's support for Israel.
Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: "As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel's cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues - and we include ourselves in that category - Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise."
At NJDC's Washington Conference, Senator Clinton strongly affirmed that that the U.S. stands "with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism," and that Israel's very existence is "a defiant rebuke to anti-Semitism." Her remarks were particularly well received by our members. (Click here for a transcript and here for video.)
The Senator's Israel position paper states, "from her first trip to Israel on New Year's Day in 1982 through her years as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has a long history of strong and steadfast leadership for the US-Israel relationship. Her connection to the State of Israel, which began when as the First Lady of Arkansas, she brought an innovative Israeli preschool education program to her state, has grown." It goes on to say that "Hillary recognizes that Israel is a most important strategic ally against the scourge of terrorism and radicalism. 'Israel,' she said, ýis not only a friend and ally for us; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should be."
Time and again, Senator Clinton comes forward to stand with Israel. In September, for instance, Senator Clinton voiced strong and eloquent support of Israel's decision to take out a Syrian weapons facility in September, asserting that "the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out," adding, "I strongly support that."
In a further example, Senator Clinton's office teamed with Palestinian Media Watch in February 2007 to release a study of anti-Israel language in Palestinian textbooks. Bold actions in support of Israel are the rule from Senator Clinton's office, not the exception.
And, as was previously alluded to, Senator Clinton was a leader in the successful efforts to push for recognition of Magen David Adom (Israel's Red Cross) into the International Red Cross movement, leading American Red Cross Chairwoman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter to comment: "In partnership with the American Red Cross, Senator Clinton has been a strong and engaged leader in support of Magen David Adom's acceptance into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."
Of course, it is important to remind anyone tempted to believe the right wing's rhetoric about Senator Clinton that her husband's administration was strongly supportive of Israel. To this day, former President Clinton continues to speak out on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship, notably taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for falsehoods in his book about the Middle East.
Senator Edwards
Right wingers have long sought to distort Senator Edwards' record. Last year, the right wing smear machine tried to spread a myth - strongly denied by the Edwards campaign - that claimed the Senator considered Israel the greatest threat to world peace. The Edwards campaign struck back hard, issuing a statement which NJDC blogged about in February. (Click here to view.) The statement said:
"Senator Edwards did not say nor does he believe that the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Senator Edwards said, as he has in the past, that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace."
Edwards spoke eloquently about the Iranian threat to the Herzliya conference in Israel. During the conference he remarked that "for years, the U.S. hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran" and that "to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
Addressing Herzliya, Edwards said that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a "bond that can never be broken." He also spoke about his dedication to Israel at NJDCýs Washington Conference. (Click here for video and here for a transcript.) One need just read this portion of his remarks to understand that this man loves Israel, understands her challenges and stands firmly with her people:
I know how important our relationship with Israel is.
I have been on extraordinarily emotional trips to Israel myself which have been very important to me. Tonight as many of you know in Israel a flag will be raised on Mt. Herzl to commemorate what happened in 1948 when members of Israel's provisional government signed a declaration of independence in Tel Aviv and celebrating Israel's independence is a wonderful historic moment for Israel. The nation is flourishing, the economy is doing very well. Israel continues to face, as many of you know very well, extraordinary threats to her people and security every single day.
I think there is a renewed need for vigilance. I was in Israel last summer --- in fact a few of the people who I was in Israel with are here tonight. We met with the Prime Minister, other Israeli leaders, and the Cabinet. We travelled to the northern border with Lebanon. This was about a month before the fighting broke out. This was one of my visits to Israel, all of which have had independent meaning for me.
On my first trip, we left the King David Hotel and left for Tel Aviv, and a few hours later the Sbarro Pizza bombing took place, which many of you will remember. Many died, including children.
On the campaign trail, Senator Edwards has sharply criticized the Bush Administration for proposing a $20 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and has pledged to take a tougher stance toward the Saudis than President Bush in the White House. He was a sharp critic of the Saudi government on the 2004 campaign trail as well, remarking, "Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing." (More info is available in a USA Today article, which is available here.)
Senator Edwards was very clear about his commitment to Israel during his 2004 debate with Vice President Cheney, declaring, "the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves." He also reiterated his support for a tougher policy on Saudi Arabia and tough efforts to hold Iran accountable: "And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people."
***
Attacks against our Democratic candidates must be countered with the facts. The earlier we start, the more powerful our pushback. I urge you to forward this message along to voters of all parties and political persuasions so we can stop the saliency of right wing attacks before it is too late. And, please send us any smear emails aimed at Jewish voters you receive so we can help debunk them.
Sincerely,
Ira N. Forman
Executive Director
National Jewish Democratic Council
PS. Please consider making a financial contribution to NJDC. Click here to contribute. And, click here to visit our blog!
____________________________________________________________________
It is reprinted with permission. I've made a few formatting corrections to improve readability (for some reason, most apostrophes and hyphens came through as some weird symbol - ý.)
____________________________________________________________________
Dear Jerry:
They are at it again. You may have already received a few bogus emails making false claims about Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The Right Wing Smear Machine is back, and they are starting early, hoping to use the Big Lie to undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.
In 2004, as you will recall, right wingers spread lies about Democratic nominee John Kerry. They lied about his outstanding service in Vietnam and started a word-of-mouth campaign in the Jewish community with a lie about his wife supporting Hamas. Likewise, the amount of misinformation the Right Wing spread about President Clinton and Vice President Gore is almost too numerous to recount.
This year, NJDC is determined to give our activists the tools to fight back ý and to fight back early. In this email, I have enclosed information that counters some specific charges that have been levied against Senators Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Please help us make it "viral" by forwarding it to friends, family, neighbors and colleagues.
In the coming days, NJDC will send around a printable fact-sheet [Note: that fact sheet is here.] on where the major Democratic candidates stand on Middle East issues.
***
Senator Obama
We have received several reports about dishonest emails circulating about Senator Obama, aimed at Jewish voters. The fact of the matter is, Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish Community. He is very popular in the Chicago Jewish Community (one of the most vibrant centers of Jewish life in the nation) and has made courting Jewish votes a priority in his presidential campaign. A recent profile about Senator Obama in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency explained: "What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator, who made history Thursday by winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa, has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career." (Click here for the full article.)
Some of the viral emails sent out about Obama claim that the Senator is anti-Israel. Such charges are off-base. Like the other Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has never cast a vote against the position of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shmuel Rosner, the U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes that Senator Obama "is pro-Israel. Period." (Click here to read his entire blog post about Obama.)
Senator Obama told the audience at NJDC's 2007 Washington Conference, "When I am President, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in search of this peace, and in defense against those who seek its destruction." (Click here for a transcript and here for video.) Likewise, in March 2007, Senator Obama told an AIPAC audience in Chicago that he believes the U.S. must have "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point" in approaching Middle East policy. Continued Obama: "And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."
Senator Obama has been endorsed by several prominent supporters of Israel, including Jewish Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, who wrote: "What has always struck me about Senator Obama - and this is one of the reasons I have endorsed his candidacy for the United States Presidency - is that a love for Israel and a desire to keep the Jewish people secure is evident not just in his work, but also in his heart." Another prominent supporter of Israel, distinguished financier Lester Crown, wrote: "As president, [Obama] will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House - stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." (More coverage of Crown's endorsement and support for Obama in the Jewish community is available on the Haaretz blog, here.)
The New York Sun - hardly a bastion of support for Democrats - editorialized: "We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans [who questioned the Senatorýs support for Israel] haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America."
It is also worth noting that Senator Obama is an outspoken critic of Iran, who wrote legislation to make it easier for states to divest from Iranian holdings. (The legislation is being blocked by a Republican Senator.)
Another Republican smear campaign falsely claims Senator Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa - a blatant lie. While Senator Obama's religion - he is Christian - should not matter in the Presidential election, setting the facts straight is important. We've seen terrible fear mongering by the right wing in the form of baseless attacks against Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, a good public servant and a friend of Israel and the Jewish Community. Similar attacks seem to be sprouting up against Senator Obama although he is Christian.
If a friend or neighbor asks you about an email or internet rumor regarding Senator Obamaýs religious upbringing, here are some important things to tell him/her:
(1) CNN reports "Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ýmadrassaý are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." The complete report is available online here in a report entitled "CNN debunks false report about Obama."
(2) The false "madrassa" rumors were published in a right wing smear magazine owned by the same company that owns the ultra-conservative Washington Times. These are the same people who have printed numerous falsehoods about the Clintons through the years.
(3) The Obama campaign has a fact sheet on its website which serves as an excellent resource about his background and sets the record straight about his religion. While Obama's religion should not be a political issue, lying about a candidate's religion is noteworthy. The fact sheet explains that, despite lies saying otherwise, Obama "is not and has never been a Muslim." The fact sheet is available here.
Scurrilous emails have also been circulating which attempt to smear Senator Obama because a magazine associated with his church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. In the response to inquiries about Farrakhan, Obama repudiated and decried Farrakhan and his anti-Semitism. He was praised by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for so-doing.
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman released a statement saying: "We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan. Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."
Newsweek debunked other falsehoods about Senator Obamaýs church, in an article posted at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424/output/print
The rhetoric in some of these viral emails about Obama is so over the top, that yesterday several leaders of national Jewish organizations signed on to a letter condemning the smear campaign being run against him. The signatories represent non-partisan organizations which do not endorse political candidates. In the letter, they wrote: "Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama's religious beliefs and who he is as a person" and "These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates."
The signatories include William Daroff of United Jewish Communities, Nathan J. Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Abraham Foxman of Anti-Defamation League, Richard S. Gordon of the American Jewish Congress, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Phyllis Snyder of the National Council of Jewish Women and Hadar Susskind of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
The letter can be viewed here.
Senator Clinton
Senator Hillary Clinton has long been a target for distortion, despite her outstanding record on issues ranging from education, to health care, to support for Israel. Despite her strong commitment to Israel and close kinship with the Jewish Community (a key reason she is tremendously popular with her New York constituents), right wing smears against her leadership continue.
Giuliani advisor Martin Kramer, for instance, wrote a disingenuous piece in the Jerusalem Post claiming that Senator Clinton's rhetoric on Israel contains code words hinting that she is not really a true friend of Israel. Of course there was no logic to anything he wrote, not a surprise given that Senator Clinton has worked overtime in support of Israel in the Senate.
I wrote an op-ed responding to Mr. Kramer, which is available on our blog, here. I would recommend sending these paragraphs to anyone who is tempted to believe a right wing smear of the Senator and her support for the Jewish state:
Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel's strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.
If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one's support for Israel.
Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: "As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel's cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues - and we include ourselves in that category - Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise."
At NJDC's Washington Conference, Senator Clinton strongly affirmed that that the U.S. stands "with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism," and that Israel's very existence is "a defiant rebuke to anti-Semitism." Her remarks were particularly well received by our members. (Click here for a transcript and here for video.)
The Senator's Israel position paper states, "from her first trip to Israel on New Year's Day in 1982 through her years as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has a long history of strong and steadfast leadership for the US-Israel relationship. Her connection to the State of Israel, which began when as the First Lady of Arkansas, she brought an innovative Israeli preschool education program to her state, has grown." It goes on to say that "Hillary recognizes that Israel is a most important strategic ally against the scourge of terrorism and radicalism. 'Israel,' she said, ýis not only a friend and ally for us; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should be."
Time and again, Senator Clinton comes forward to stand with Israel. In September, for instance, Senator Clinton voiced strong and eloquent support of Israel's decision to take out a Syrian weapons facility in September, asserting that "the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out," adding, "I strongly support that."
In a further example, Senator Clinton's office teamed with Palestinian Media Watch in February 2007 to release a study of anti-Israel language in Palestinian textbooks. Bold actions in support of Israel are the rule from Senator Clinton's office, not the exception.
And, as was previously alluded to, Senator Clinton was a leader in the successful efforts to push for recognition of Magen David Adom (Israel's Red Cross) into the International Red Cross movement, leading American Red Cross Chairwoman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter to comment: "In partnership with the American Red Cross, Senator Clinton has been a strong and engaged leader in support of Magen David Adom's acceptance into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."
Of course, it is important to remind anyone tempted to believe the right wing's rhetoric about Senator Clinton that her husband's administration was strongly supportive of Israel. To this day, former President Clinton continues to speak out on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship, notably taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for falsehoods in his book about the Middle East.
Senator Edwards
Right wingers have long sought to distort Senator Edwards' record. Last year, the right wing smear machine tried to spread a myth - strongly denied by the Edwards campaign - that claimed the Senator considered Israel the greatest threat to world peace. The Edwards campaign struck back hard, issuing a statement which NJDC blogged about in February. (Click here to view.) The statement said:
"Senator Edwards did not say nor does he believe that the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Senator Edwards said, as he has in the past, that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace."
Edwards spoke eloquently about the Iranian threat to the Herzliya conference in Israel. During the conference he remarked that "for years, the U.S. hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran" and that "to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
Addressing Herzliya, Edwards said that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a "bond that can never be broken." He also spoke about his dedication to Israel at NJDCýs Washington Conference. (Click here for video and here for a transcript.) One need just read this portion of his remarks to understand that this man loves Israel, understands her challenges and stands firmly with her people:
I know how important our relationship with Israel is.
I have been on extraordinarily emotional trips to Israel myself which have been very important to me. Tonight as many of you know in Israel a flag will be raised on Mt. Herzl to commemorate what happened in 1948 when members of Israel's provisional government signed a declaration of independence in Tel Aviv and celebrating Israel's independence is a wonderful historic moment for Israel. The nation is flourishing, the economy is doing very well. Israel continues to face, as many of you know very well, extraordinary threats to her people and security every single day.
I think there is a renewed need for vigilance. I was in Israel last summer --- in fact a few of the people who I was in Israel with are here tonight. We met with the Prime Minister, other Israeli leaders, and the Cabinet. We travelled to the northern border with Lebanon. This was about a month before the fighting broke out. This was one of my visits to Israel, all of which have had independent meaning for me.
On my first trip, we left the King David Hotel and left for Tel Aviv, and a few hours later the Sbarro Pizza bombing took place, which many of you will remember. Many died, including children.
On the campaign trail, Senator Edwards has sharply criticized the Bush Administration for proposing a $20 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and has pledged to take a tougher stance toward the Saudis than President Bush in the White House. He was a sharp critic of the Saudi government on the 2004 campaign trail as well, remarking, "Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing." (More info is available in a USA Today article, which is available here.)
Senator Edwards was very clear about his commitment to Israel during his 2004 debate with Vice President Cheney, declaring, "the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves." He also reiterated his support for a tougher policy on Saudi Arabia and tough efforts to hold Iran accountable: "And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people."
***
Attacks against our Democratic candidates must be countered with the facts. The earlier we start, the more powerful our pushback. I urge you to forward this message along to voters of all parties and political persuasions so we can stop the saliency of right wing attacks before it is too late. And, please send us any smear emails aimed at Jewish voters you receive so we can help debunk them.
Sincerely,
Ira N. Forman
Executive Director
National Jewish Democratic Council
PS. Please consider making a financial contribution to NJDC. Click here to contribute. And, click here to visit our blog!
____________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)