Wednesday, May 7 - The launch party for AZ School Works, Jason Williams' (former candidate for AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction) new PAC.
About the organization: "AZ School Works is a Political Action Committee (PAC) which will promote fiscal responsibility for Arizona’s public schools by informing the electorate of our State’s current priorities, practices and financial management in our public education system. In addition to acting as a community watchdog, the PAC focuses on electing candidates in order to impact local elections."
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: Fair Trafe Café, 1020 N. 1st Avenue, Phoenix AZ, (park behind Trinity Cathedral in the parking garage)
Suggested donation: $25
Wednesday and Thursday, May 7 and 8 - Workshops on Southern Scottsdale Community Area Plan
Time (both days): 7:00 p.m.
Places: May 7, Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef Road; May 8, Pueblo Elementary School cafeteria, 6320 N. 82nd St.
The City's Area Plans page here.
Thursday, May 8 - The LD17 Democrats and The Big Picture Film Series present an exclusive screening of the documentary Body of War. This wrenching film chronicles the journey of Tomas Young as he moves from being young soldier, through being wounded and permanently paralyzed less than a week after arriving in Iraq, to becoming a "passionate" opponent of the war.
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Chandler Cinemas, 2140 N. Arizona Ave., Chandler, AZ
Cost: $10 at the door or purchase in advance here.
Thursday, May 8 - Monthly meeting of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS)
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Granite Reef Senior Center, Granite Reef Rd., just north of McDowell.
Guest Speaker: John Little, Scottsdale's Acting City Manager
Wednesday, May 21 - Meeting of the North Indian Bend Wash Community Involvement Group (NIBW CIG)
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Place: the auditorium at the Scottsdale Civic Center Library (3839 N.Drinkwater Blvd.)
Later!
Friday, May 02, 2008
Scottsdale/PV TCE updates
There have been some recent developments to report regarding the situation at the Miller Road Treatment Facility (MRTF) in Scottsdale.
The facility was shut down in January due to a failure that resulted in the introduction of contaminated water into the drinking water supply to nearly 5000 customers of Arizona American Water Company (AAWC) in PV and Scottsdale.
One development was reported in the East Valley Tribune on April 29. While water from the TCE-contaminated well that was subject to 'remediation', named PCX-1, is no longer used for drinking water, as of Sunday the facility is operating; it's output is now pumped into an SRP canal.
The part of the MRTF that treated the water from PCX-1 is no longer operated by AAWC; Motorola, one of the 'participating companies' (PCs, the companies responsible for the contamination in the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site), has contracted with the firm LFR to operate the facility. (I think this is the company's website)
The other development was reported by the AZ Republic on May 1. Two investigations have been completed into January's incident and reports filed with the EPA.
One investigation, conducted on behalf of the PCs, determined human error on the part of AAWC personnel was the underlying cause of the problem.
The other investigation, conducted on behalf of AAWC "concluded that the plant's systems and components were not designed or operated in an optimal manner."
Yup, the "mutual finger-pointing session" is getting up to speed. :)
...Which should make for an interesting get-together when the NIBW Community Involvement Group (CIG) meets on May 21 at the Civic Center Branch of the Scottsdale Library. From the email from Vicki Rosen, the EPA's Community Involvement Coordinator for the NIBW -
Later!
The facility was shut down in January due to a failure that resulted in the introduction of contaminated water into the drinking water supply to nearly 5000 customers of Arizona American Water Company (AAWC) in PV and Scottsdale.
One development was reported in the East Valley Tribune on April 29. While water from the TCE-contaminated well that was subject to 'remediation', named PCX-1, is no longer used for drinking water, as of Sunday the facility is operating; it's output is now pumped into an SRP canal.
The part of the MRTF that treated the water from PCX-1 is no longer operated by AAWC; Motorola, one of the 'participating companies' (PCs, the companies responsible for the contamination in the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site), has contracted with the firm LFR to operate the facility. (I think this is the company's website)
The other development was reported by the AZ Republic on May 1. Two investigations have been completed into January's incident and reports filed with the EPA.
One investigation, conducted on behalf of the PCs, determined human error on the part of AAWC personnel was the underlying cause of the problem.
The other investigation, conducted on behalf of AAWC "concluded that the plant's systems and components were not designed or operated in an optimal manner."
Yup, the "mutual finger-pointing session" is getting up to speed. :)
...Which should make for an interesting get-together when the NIBW Community Involvement Group (CIG) meets on May 21 at the Civic Center Branch of the Scottsdale Library. From the email from Vicki Rosen, the EPA's Community Involvement Coordinator for the NIBW -
We will be holding a CIG meeting on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 and hope many of you can attend. It will be at the usual time of 5:30 pm until 7:30 pm, however, the location this time will be different. We will be using the auditorium at the Scottsdale Civic Center Library (3839 N.Drinkwater Blvd.)...The main topic will be what's gone on since the Miller Road Treatment Facility failures...where we are now and what we're evaluating for the future.
Later!
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Gordon gets boost from nativists
...but that's not really their goal... :))
In yesterday's post on Harry Mitchell's Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, I commented on how Bob Lord, John Shadegg's opponent for the CD3 seat, is probably very grateful for Shadegg's disrespect for our nation's (and his district's) veterans.
Now, we have another situation where an elected official and likely future candidate for higher office is probably grateful for the actions of his opponents.
It seems that some anti-immigrant zealots are trying to mount a petition drive to recall Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
They don't like the fact that he sees Mexican immigrants, not as targets for bigotry, hatred, and worse, but as human beings.
Actually, "don't like" is putting it mildly.
I'm not going to totally disregard their chances for success - not only am I unfamiliar with the dynamics of Phoenix politics, my guess is that the organizers of the recall effort will receive plenty of support from Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas, respectively the Maricopa County Sheriff and Attorney.
Why would they do that? Why else - payback. :))
Anyway, back to the point - while it is possible that this recall effort has a chance at success, consider these two facts:
1. The petition gatherers need 23,751 valid signatures to force the recall election.
2. In the September, 2007 elections, Gordon's opponent received 21,868 votes.
The most likely outcome of this recall effort, and the one that Gordon will probably be grateful for, is that this campaign by the anti-immigrant zealots will further move Gordon into the good graces of grassroots Democrats across the state.
While his organization in Phoenix is formidable (see last year's election results), if Gordon aspires to higher office, he'll need a wider base of support than what he has in Phoenix.
If you don't believe that, remember - Janet Napolitano won the Governor's race in 2002 *without* winning Maricopa County. (AZ Secretary of State's results page here)
Being strong in Maricopa County is good - it's the most populous county in the state; being strong *only* in Maricopa County - not so good.
Ask Matt Salmon, Governor Napolitano's opponent in 2002.
Assuming that this recall campaign doesn't have real legs, and right now it looks like nothing more than a red-faced, screaming, foot-stamping temper tantrum thrown by overgrown children, the campaign only helps Gordon in the long run.
Attorney General Gordon?
Governor Gordon??
Congressman (or even U.S. Senator) Gordon???
What'll the nativists think of their recall effort when one of those eventualities comes to pass?
Later!
In yesterday's post on Harry Mitchell's Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, I commented on how Bob Lord, John Shadegg's opponent for the CD3 seat, is probably very grateful for Shadegg's disrespect for our nation's (and his district's) veterans.
Now, we have another situation where an elected official and likely future candidate for higher office is probably grateful for the actions of his opponents.
It seems that some anti-immigrant zealots are trying to mount a petition drive to recall Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
They don't like the fact that he sees Mexican immigrants, not as targets for bigotry, hatred, and worse, but as human beings.
Actually, "don't like" is putting it mildly.
I'm not going to totally disregard their chances for success - not only am I unfamiliar with the dynamics of Phoenix politics, my guess is that the organizers of the recall effort will receive plenty of support from Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas, respectively the Maricopa County Sheriff and Attorney.
Why would they do that? Why else - payback. :))
Anyway, back to the point - while it is possible that this recall effort has a chance at success, consider these two facts:
1. The petition gatherers need 23,751 valid signatures to force the recall election.
2. In the September, 2007 elections, Gordon's opponent received 21,868 votes.
The most likely outcome of this recall effort, and the one that Gordon will probably be grateful for, is that this campaign by the anti-immigrant zealots will further move Gordon into the good graces of grassroots Democrats across the state.
While his organization in Phoenix is formidable (see last year's election results), if Gordon aspires to higher office, he'll need a wider base of support than what he has in Phoenix.
If you don't believe that, remember - Janet Napolitano won the Governor's race in 2002 *without* winning Maricopa County. (AZ Secretary of State's results page here)
Being strong in Maricopa County is good - it's the most populous county in the state; being strong *only* in Maricopa County - not so good.
Ask Matt Salmon, Governor Napolitano's opponent in 2002.
Assuming that this recall campaign doesn't have real legs, and right now it looks like nothing more than a red-faced, screaming, foot-stamping temper tantrum thrown by overgrown children, the campaign only helps Gordon in the long run.
Attorney General Gordon?
Governor Gordon??
Congressman (or even U.S. Senator) Gordon???
What'll the nativists think of their recall effort when one of those eventualities comes to pass?
Later!
It's been 5 years...
... and over 3800 more dead American servicemen and women (and tens of thousands dead Iraqi civilians) since Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.
Of course, the White House has their spin on the matter - they admit the banner was a mistake, but the mistake was in allowing people to interpret it to mean that the mission in Iraq was the one that had been accomplished. What they meant with the banner was to commemorate the accomplishment of the *carrier's* mission. (WMAZ-TV in Georgia)
The Bush White House's party line was echoed by 'maverick' Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who stated that he "thought it was wrong at the time" but that he can't blame Bush for the banner, just for, perhaps, some of the comments made by administration officials that may have led people to the wrong impression of the meaning of the banner.
It's been 5 years, and thousands more people have died in Bush's war.
It's been 5 years, and billions more dollars have been spent on Bush's war.
It's been 5 years, and they are still shameless.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Harry Mitchell's Veterans Bill Creating Some Strangeness In D.C. And Arizona
Congressman Harry Mitchell's H.R. 5740, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, while garnering widespread support among his colleagues (250 cosponsors and counting), but it's creating an interesting dichotomy among the Republican members of AZ's Congressional delegation.
[Note: Congressman Mitchell's blog entry about the bill, in The Hill, is here.]
On the one hand, we have John Shadegg (R-AZ3). He is refusing to support the bill, not because he thinks it is a bad bill, but because he hasn't been asked to support it.
On the other hand, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), who, like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, 'hates everything' related to government spending, may sign on in support of the bill (which, by the way, would be this year's "Phoenix freezes over" moment if that comes to pass :) ).
So, let me get this straight - John Shadegg, the hand-shaking, baby-kissing, industry PAC money-taking, savvy politician (his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year notwithstanding) is telling the 56,000 veterans in his district to get stuffed, while Jeff Flake, the putative anti-government crusader, who is almost physically incapable of supporting anything that has even a hint of a whiff of help for the average American, veteran or otherwise, is considering throwing his support behind Mitchell's bill?
Shadegg shouldn't be surprised when his challenger, Bob Lord, says "thank you" to him.
That's because he understands that many (most??) of CD3's veterans will also have a couple of words to say to Shadegg when Election Day rolls around, and while the second word will be "you" also, the first one won't be "thank."
Nope, not even close.
BTW - am I the only one who thinks that "I can't support it because I haven't been asked to" is the epitome of pissy?
BTW2 - During his 2006 campaign against JD Hayworth, more than once I used a 'workhorse vs. showhorse' analogy when comparing Mitchell to Hayworth. Bills like H.R. 5740 show why this is still accurate - the bill isn't showy, it's just solidly professional and effective legislation and governance.
Compare those qualities to most of the Republicans in Congress or running to replace Democrats there.
'Nuff said.
Bob Lord's campaign website here.
Lord press release on the topic, courtesy PolitickerAZ, here; more Lord press releases on this subject here and here.
Richard Grayson's chronicle of Jeff Flake's extremist ideology and ineffective representation of his district here (Grayson is mounting a campaign for the CD6 seat.)
[Note: Congressman Mitchell's blog entry about the bill, in The Hill, is here.]
On the one hand, we have John Shadegg (R-AZ3). He is refusing to support the bill, not because he thinks it is a bad bill, but because he hasn't been asked to support it.
On the other hand, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), who, like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, 'hates everything' related to government spending, may sign on in support of the bill (which, by the way, would be this year's "Phoenix freezes over" moment if that comes to pass :) ).
So, let me get this straight - John Shadegg, the hand-shaking, baby-kissing, industry PAC money-taking, savvy politician (his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year notwithstanding) is telling the 56,000 veterans in his district to get stuffed, while Jeff Flake, the putative anti-government crusader, who is almost physically incapable of supporting anything that has even a hint of a whiff of help for the average American, veteran or otherwise, is considering throwing his support behind Mitchell's bill?
Shadegg shouldn't be surprised when his challenger, Bob Lord, says "thank you" to him.
That's because he understands that many (most??) of CD3's veterans will also have a couple of words to say to Shadegg when Election Day rolls around, and while the second word will be "you" also, the first one won't be "thank."
Nope, not even close.
BTW - am I the only one who thinks that "I can't support it because I haven't been asked to" is the epitome of pissy?
BTW2 - During his 2006 campaign against JD Hayworth, more than once I used a 'workhorse vs. showhorse' analogy when comparing Mitchell to Hayworth. Bills like H.R. 5740 show why this is still accurate - the bill isn't showy, it's just solidly professional and effective legislation and governance.
Compare those qualities to most of the Republicans in Congress or running to replace Democrats there.
'Nuff said.
Bob Lord's campaign website here.
Lord press release on the topic, courtesy PolitickerAZ, here; more Lord press releases on this subject here and here.
Richard Grayson's chronicle of Jeff Flake's extremist ideology and ineffective representation of his district here (Grayson is mounting a campaign for the CD6 seat.)
Update on the AZ Delegation post
After hours upon hours of diligent research (OK, OK - it was an email to Emily Bittner, the AZ Democratic Party's communications director), it has been determined that the rumor of a challenge to Charlene Fernandez' election as 1st Vice Chair of the ADP is only that, a rumor.
However, Tedski's post in response to my original post shed some light on the likely basis of the rumor.
Apparently Janice Brunson, a National Committeewoman and a Clinton supporter, objected to the number of proxies that Charlene Fernandez (and her supporters from Yuma County) brought to the meeting - 38 distributed over 4 attendees - and is seeking a bylaw change to bar someone from holding more than 3 proxies.
From a Brunson email quoted by Tedski in his post -
There was more, and I recommend reading his entire post, but let me summarize -
She thought it was unfair that political maneuvering took place at a political meeting.
Anyway, I have my doubts that such a move will gain much traction - for this change to take place, it would probably have to be supported by the very same rural Democrats that she is seeking to disenfranchise.
Probably not gonna happen... :)
Proxies are allowed specifically to help ensure that rural Dems have a voice in the Party. In a state as large and rural as AZ (and outside of Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, this *is* a very rural state), it's very difficult for activists from the state's hinterlands to make four hour (or longer!) trek to one of the metro areas for a meeting of the state committee.
Perhaps a better solution would be to find a way to encourage fuller participation from all over the state, not just the urban areas, and no, I don't have any idea how to pull off that one.
BTW - Apparently Tedski viewed as a challenge my suggestion in the earlier post to check his blog because he would probably scoop me on the details.
Couple of points here -
1. No challenge intended, just a compliment - when it comes to the inner workings of the state party, he's got waayyyy better sources than I do. Period.
2. I was right - he did have the details before I did. :)
Later!
However, Tedski's post in response to my original post shed some light on the likely basis of the rumor.
Apparently Janice Brunson, a National Committeewoman and a Clinton supporter, objected to the number of proxies that Charlene Fernandez (and her supporters from Yuma County) brought to the meeting - 38 distributed over 4 attendees - and is seeking a bylaw change to bar someone from holding more than 3 proxies.
From a Brunson email quoted by Tedski in his post -
I urge immediate consideration of a bylaw limiting the number of proxies any one person can carry to a State Committee meeting and cast in any Party election.
At the meeting of April 26, one person carried 45 proxies. Based on the outcome of elections - not only for party first vice chair but also for presidential delegates - these proxies were cast as a block, clearly swaying outcomes. I learned during the meeting that this had been prearranged by a small handful of committee members.
There was more, and I recommend reading his entire post, but let me summarize -
She thought it was unfair that political maneuvering took place at a political meeting.
Anyway, I have my doubts that such a move will gain much traction - for this change to take place, it would probably have to be supported by the very same rural Democrats that she is seeking to disenfranchise.
Probably not gonna happen... :)
Proxies are allowed specifically to help ensure that rural Dems have a voice in the Party. In a state as large and rural as AZ (and outside of Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, this *is* a very rural state), it's very difficult for activists from the state's hinterlands to make four hour (or longer!) trek to one of the metro areas for a meeting of the state committee.
Perhaps a better solution would be to find a way to encourage fuller participation from all over the state, not just the urban areas, and no, I don't have any idea how to pull off that one.
BTW - Apparently Tedski viewed as a challenge my suggestion in the earlier post to check his blog because he would probably scoop me on the details.
Couple of points here -
1. No challenge intended, just a compliment - when it comes to the inner workings of the state party, he's got waayyyy better sources than I do. Period.
2. I was right - he did have the details before I did. :)
Later!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Quick Elections Update - New Candidates
Edit to add info on LD18 candidate Joe Brown below...
Scottsdale update (info courtesy the Scottsdale City Clerk's elections webpage) -
In news that should surprise no one who follows the goings-on in Scottsdale, Tom Giller, the driving force behind Height and Density, the anti-Hanover Project political committee, has filed candidate committee paperwork with the Scottsdale City Clerk's office.
I think he is seeking a seat on the City Council; while his paperwork doesn't specify, this EV Trib article written by Brian Powell states that he is.
His campaign committee's contact number is 480.947.3654.
Also filing paperwork for a Council run is Oren Davis, a pro-development Scottsdale businessman.
From the same Trib article -
That quote is the sum total of my knowledge of Mr. Davis. :))
His campaign's contact number is 602.295.3783.
LD17 Update (note: all LD candidate info courtesy the AZ Secretary of State's campaign finance report webpage) -
State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill has a Republican challenger in Jesse Hernandez of Tempe, who filed his paperwork on April 15, 2008. He is running as a Clean Elections candidate. He's a business owner and long-time Republican. (brief bio here)
LD18 Update -
Another candidate has jumped into the LD18 State Rep fray. Joe Brown, running as an Independent, turned in organizational paperwork on April 18, 2008. He running as a Clean Elections candidate. With that name, I'm not even bothering with a Google search and I don't have any familiarity with the Mesa political scene (other than knowing that Democrats Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio are running for LD18 House and Senate, respectively.)
Edit on 4/30 to update, with info courtesy Judah Nativio, Democratic candidate for the Senate seat in LD18 -
I'd wish him good luck with that, but there's a reason that Sen. Allen has become an "electoral buzzsaw" - she has earned the respect of people from all over the political spectrum because of her dedication and skill as a public servant (even if she *is* an Arizona Republican. Apparently, she doesn't drink the Kool-Aid. :) ).
Unless a Democrat steps up, this one's already over...
Later!
Scottsdale update (info courtesy the Scottsdale City Clerk's elections webpage) -
In news that should surprise no one who follows the goings-on in Scottsdale, Tom Giller, the driving force behind Height and Density, the anti-Hanover Project political committee, has filed candidate committee paperwork with the Scottsdale City Clerk's office.
I think he is seeking a seat on the City Council; while his paperwork doesn't specify, this EV Trib article written by Brian Powell states that he is.
His campaign committee's contact number is 480.947.3654.
Also filing paperwork for a Council run is Oren Davis, a pro-development Scottsdale businessman.
From the same Trib article -
Davis, 54, said he was encouraged by Councilman Jim Lane - who is challenging Mayor Mary Manross in September for the city's top post - and Paul Messinger to run for council.
"I am pro-growth but would also like to maintain the character of Scottsdale," Davis said.
Davis also said he'd like to see more transparency in government and more communication between developers and residents with hopes of avoiding another issue like Hanover.
That quote is the sum total of my knowledge of Mr. Davis. :))
His campaign's contact number is 602.295.3783.
LD17 Update (note: all LD candidate info courtesy the AZ Secretary of State's campaign finance report webpage) -
State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill has a Republican challenger in Jesse Hernandez of Tempe, who filed his paperwork on April 15, 2008. He is running as a Clean Elections candidate. He's a business owner and long-time Republican. (brief bio here)
LD18 Update -
Another candidate has jumped into the LD18 State Rep fray. Joe Brown, running as an Independent, turned in organizational paperwork on April 18, 2008. He running as a Clean Elections candidate. With that name, I'm not even bothering with a Google search and I don't have any familiarity with the Mesa political scene (other than knowing that Democrats Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio are running for LD18 House and Senate, respectively.)
Edit on 4/30 to update, with info courtesy Judah Nativio, Democratic candidate for the Senate seat in LD18 -
Mr. Brown is a conservative Republican who ran against Karen Johnson for the LD18 Senate seat in 2006; he lost in the primary, garnering slightly more than 25% of the votes cast. Apparently, he changed his registration sometime after that.
End edit.
No changes in LD8, except that a Libertarian, Robert Weber, has formed a committee to take on the electoral buzzsaw known as State Senator Carolyn Allen.I'd wish him good luck with that, but there's a reason that Sen. Allen has become an "electoral buzzsaw" - she has earned the respect of people from all over the political spectrum because of her dedication and skill as a public servant (even if she *is* an Arizona Republican. Apparently, she doesn't drink the Kool-Aid. :) ).
Unless a Democrat steps up, this one's already over...
Later!
Monday, April 28, 2008
AZ's Democratic Delegation Finalized
At Saturday's meeting of the Democratic State Committee, members selected PLEO (party leader/elected official) and At-Large delegates to this summer's national convention. Some delegates are pledged to Clinton, some to Obama.
The big news of the convention concerned the election of a new 1st Vice-Chair (and automatic superdelegate) of the ADP. Early expectations were that the slot would go to a Clinton supporter, but in a bit of a surprise, Charlene Fernandez, chair of the Yuma County Democratic Party, won the slot after announcing that she supports Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination.
There is an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor (from a state committee member) that one of the Clinton superdelegates may challenge the election of Fernandez. I'll look into this, but if anything comes of it, Tedski will probably have the scoop first (something about him being on the state committee, a brother on the state committee, a mom on the state committee, and so forth :)) ).
The final (pending any challenges) list, courtesy the website of the Arizona Democratic Party (superdelegate endorsement info courtesy PolitickerAZ) -
Uncommitted superdelegates -
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ8)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ5)
State Attorney General Terry Goddard
Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Don Bivens
Clinton delegates
Superdelegates -
Congressman Ed Pastor (AZ4)
Democratic National Committee member Janice C. Brunson
DNC member Joe Rios
DNC member Carolyn Warner
PLEO -
Arizona Sen. Amanda Aguirre
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos
Arizona Democratic Party Vice-Chairman Tony J. Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley
At-Large -
Arizona Sen. Ken Cheuvront
Fountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny Dickey
Adam Falk
Katie Hobbs
Michael Incorvaia
Amanda Simpson
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
At-Large Alternates -
DNC Member-elect and Arizona Democratic Party secretary Judy Kennedy
Arizona Rep. Robert Meza
District level delegates -
Jack Jackson, Jr.
Greg Kaighn
Dawn Knight
Nikki Basque (alternate)
Bree Boehlke
Debra Boehlke
Robert Boehlke
Matthew Miller (alternate)
Howard Bell
Jim Pederson
Lois Pfau
Lisa White (alternate)
Dana Kennedy
Jose Rivas
Angie Crouse
George Paterakis
Beverly Fox-Miller
Roman Ullman
Elizabeth Brown (alternate)
David Martinez
Gail Beeler
Elly Anderson
Chris Campas
JoJene E. Mills
Bruce Heurlin (alternate)
Obama Delegates
Superdelegates -
Governor Janet Napolitano
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ7)
ADP 1st Vice Chair Charlene Fernandez
PLEO -
Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned J. Norris
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema
At-Large -
Magdalena Barajas
Sen. Dennis DeConcini
Ruben Gallego Arizona
Rep. David Schapira
Brandan Spradling
At-Large Alternate -
Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson
District level delegates -
Christopher Clark-Dechene
Angela Lefevre
Shirley A. McAllister
Eddie Smith
Mark Manoil
Genevieve M. Vega
David Gass
Katharine Widland
Sean Bowie
Donna M. Gratehouse
Lauren Kuby
James J. Brodie (alternate)
John Chiazza
Kit Filbey
Paul Eckerstrom
Lisa Fernandez
John C. Adams
Patricia L. Canady
Congratulations to everyone, and hope to see you in Denver...
The big news of the convention concerned the election of a new 1st Vice-Chair (and automatic superdelegate) of the ADP. Early expectations were that the slot would go to a Clinton supporter, but in a bit of a surprise, Charlene Fernandez, chair of the Yuma County Democratic Party, won the slot after announcing that she supports Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination.
There is an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor (from a state committee member) that one of the Clinton superdelegates may challenge the election of Fernandez. I'll look into this, but if anything comes of it, Tedski will probably have the scoop first (something about him being on the state committee, a brother on the state committee, a mom on the state committee, and so forth :)) ).
The final (pending any challenges) list, courtesy the website of the Arizona Democratic Party (superdelegate endorsement info courtesy PolitickerAZ) -
Uncommitted superdelegates -
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ8)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ5)
State Attorney General Terry Goddard
Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Don Bivens
Clinton delegates
Superdelegates -
Congressman Ed Pastor (AZ4)
Democratic National Committee member Janice C. Brunson
DNC member Joe Rios
DNC member Carolyn Warner
PLEO -
Arizona Sen. Amanda Aguirre
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos
Arizona Democratic Party Vice-Chairman Tony J. Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley
At-Large -
Arizona Sen. Ken Cheuvront
Fountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny Dickey
Adam Falk
Katie Hobbs
Michael Incorvaia
Amanda Simpson
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
At-Large Alternates -
DNC Member-elect and Arizona Democratic Party secretary Judy Kennedy
Arizona Rep. Robert Meza
District level delegates -
Jack Jackson, Jr.
Greg Kaighn
Dawn Knight
Nikki Basque (alternate)
Bree Boehlke
Debra Boehlke
Robert Boehlke
Matthew Miller (alternate)
Howard Bell
Jim Pederson
Lois Pfau
Lisa White (alternate)
Dana Kennedy
Jose Rivas
Angie Crouse
George Paterakis
Beverly Fox-Miller
Roman Ullman
Elizabeth Brown (alternate)
David Martinez
Gail Beeler
Elly Anderson
Chris Campas
JoJene E. Mills
Bruce Heurlin (alternate)
Obama Delegates
Superdelegates -
Governor Janet Napolitano
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ7)
ADP 1st Vice Chair Charlene Fernandez
PLEO -
Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned J. Norris
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema
At-Large -
Magdalena Barajas
Sen. Dennis DeConcini
Ruben Gallego Arizona
Rep. David Schapira
Brandan Spradling
At-Large Alternate -
Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson
District level delegates -
Christopher Clark-Dechene
Angela Lefevre
Shirley A. McAllister
Eddie Smith
Mark Manoil
Genevieve M. Vega
David Gass
Katharine Widland
Sean Bowie
Donna M. Gratehouse
Lauren Kuby
James J. Brodie (alternate)
John Chiazza
Kit Filbey
Paul Eckerstrom
Lisa Fernandez
John C. Adams
Patricia L. Canady
Congratulations to everyone, and hope to see you in Denver...
Friday, April 25, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing - Presidential Campaigns Edition
...One of the arguments that the Clinton campaign is using to try to persuade the Democratic Party's superdelegates that Senator Clinton is the better candidate is that she has won the primaries in important general election swing states and that if Senator Obama can't win in the primaries there, he won't win in the general election there either.
A bit of research shows that race for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination was not as tight as this year's race (that one was pretty much over after Super Tuesday), but in spite of that, there were 11 primaries/caucuses that weren't won by Bill Clinton -
Iowa
Colorado
Delaware
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Arizona
Connecticut
South Dakota
Using the current logic, that must mean that he didn't win those states in the general election, right??
Not so right - he won 9 of those 11 states, the exceptions being Arizona and South Dakota.
Something tells me that isn't a statistic that the Clinton campaign is bringing up to anyone.
The simple fact is that a candidate's primary performance in a given state isn't much of an indicator of his/her general election performance in that same state.
...Other statistics that probably aren't getting brought up by the Clinton campaign is the likely negative down ballot effect of Clinton at the top of the ticket.
From the Kos diary entry (by Kos himself) on the subject of Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain (thanks for the heads-up go out to Lauren!) -
There's also the legislative races to consider - with McCain topping the Republican ticket, it's going to be tough enough to maintain status quo in the lege, much less gain ground or even win a majority in one or both chambers of the lege. At least with Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket, a lot of the new voters that Obama has brought to the table will stay engaged; if he doesn't head the ticket, particularly if it appears that he lost the nomination unfairly, most of them will stay on the sidelines come the general election.
...John McCain, while pretending to take the high road, sent out an email after the Pennsylvania primary that tried to make a case that Hillary Clinton is the stronger Democratic candidate. Perhaps he hasn't played the race card here, but he did play the class and religion cards in playing up Sen. Clinton's strengths.
I think (I'm really not sure here) that his intended implication to his supporters is that he, McCain, will win with the particular demographic groups come November if Obama wins the Democratic nomination.
From the email, sent out under the name of campaign manager Rick Davis (which I can't link to, but will be happy to forward upon request) -
I suppose McCain could win Union voters if they aren't paying attention to his actual voting record and his economic policies (I think Reagan did, though McCain is no Reagan), but lower income workers? That's asking a *lot* of people to ignore McCain's record.
...Perhaps the McCain campaign really *does* consider Senator Clinton to be the stronger opponent (really!), but the rest of his party isn't on board with that. They're attacking him all over the country.
From the New York Times -
...On a much lighter note, check out the YouTube video of Senator Obama's post-results speech on Tuesday.
Note the three guys in the 2nd row, directly behind the Senator, and ask yourself -
How much did Abercrombie and Fitch pay them for their ability to get A&F logos such prominent placement?
I mean, there's no way that three people in the middle of a throng of campaign workers and supporters stood next to each other, in the one spot most likely to be constantly on camera, all while prominently wearing the same mall-trendy overpriced t-shirt brand, and it was all just coincidence?
Expect the Obama campaign's event staffers to scotch similar moves in the future.
Have a good weekend!
A bit of research shows that race for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination was not as tight as this year's race (that one was pretty much over after Super Tuesday), but in spite of that, there were 11 primaries/caucuses that weren't won by Bill Clinton -
Iowa
Colorado
Delaware
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Arizona
Connecticut
South Dakota
Using the current logic, that must mean that he didn't win those states in the general election, right??
Not so right - he won 9 of those 11 states, the exceptions being Arizona and South Dakota.
Something tells me that isn't a statistic that the Clinton campaign is bringing up to anyone.
The simple fact is that a candidate's primary performance in a given state isn't much of an indicator of his/her general election performance in that same state.
...Other statistics that probably aren't getting brought up by the Clinton campaign is the likely negative down ballot effect of Clinton at the top of the ticket.
From the Kos diary entry (by Kos himself) on the subject of Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain (thanks for the heads-up go out to Lauren!) -
Obama even makes a difference in the "blowout" states, like McCain's home of Arizona.
Rasmussen. 4/15. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)
McCain (R) 57
Obama (D) 37
McCain (R) 60
Clinton (D) 32
"But", say the Clinton apologists, "what does it matter if we lose by 28 points or just 20? A loss is a loss!" It matters to the two House Democratic freshman running tough reelection campaigns this year (Mitchell in AZ-05 and Giffords in AZ-08). It matters to the Democrats running in our two targeted races in AZ-01 (Renzi's old seat) and AZ-03 (Shadegg's seat). The smaller the margin at the top of the ticket, the fewer ticket splitters they need to win their races.
There's also the legislative races to consider - with McCain topping the Republican ticket, it's going to be tough enough to maintain status quo in the lege, much less gain ground or even win a majority in one or both chambers of the lege. At least with Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket, a lot of the new voters that Obama has brought to the table will stay engaged; if he doesn't head the ticket, particularly if it appears that he lost the nomination unfairly, most of them will stay on the sidelines come the general election.
...John McCain, while pretending to take the high road, sent out an email after the Pennsylvania primary that tried to make a case that Hillary Clinton is the stronger Democratic candidate. Perhaps he hasn't played the race card here, but he did play the class and religion cards in playing up Sen. Clinton's strengths.
I think (I'm really not sure here) that his intended implication to his supporters is that he, McCain, will win with the particular demographic groups come November if Obama wins the Democratic nomination.
From the email, sent out under the name of campaign manager Rick Davis (which I can't link to, but will be happy to forward upon request) -
Subject: Strategy Memo: Democratic Primary Results
{snip}
Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio.
{snip}
Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters.
{snip}
Clinton won Catholic voters.
{snip}
Clinton won Jewish voters.
{snip}
etc.
I suppose McCain could win Union voters if they aren't paying attention to his actual voting record and his economic policies (I think Reagan did, though McCain is no Reagan), but lower income workers? That's asking a *lot* of people to ignore McCain's record.
...Perhaps the McCain campaign really *does* consider Senator Clinton to be the stronger opponent (really!), but the rest of his party isn't on board with that. They're attacking him all over the country.
From the New York Times -
G.O.P. Now Sees Obama as Liability for Ticket
Senator Barack Obama is starring in a growing number of campaign commercials, but the latest batch is being underwritten by Republicans.
In a sign that the racial, class and values issues simmering in the presidential campaign could spread into the larger political arena, Republican groups are turning recent bumps in Mr. Obama’s road — notably his comment that small-town Americans “cling” to guns and religion out of bitterness and a fiery speech by his former minister in which he condemned the United States — into attacks against Democrats down the ticket.
...On a much lighter note, check out the YouTube video of Senator Obama's post-results speech on Tuesday.
Note the three guys in the 2nd row, directly behind the Senator, and ask yourself -
How much did Abercrombie and Fitch pay them for their ability to get A&F logos such prominent placement?
I mean, there's no way that three people in the middle of a throng of campaign workers and supporters stood next to each other, in the one spot most likely to be constantly on camera, all while prominently wearing the same mall-trendy overpriced t-shirt brand, and it was all just coincidence?
Expect the Obama campaign's event staffers to scotch similar moves in the future.
Have a good weekend!
Judge protects status quo, nixes Hanover Project referendum
A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge sided with the developers of the Hanover Project, ruling that the political committee that was formed to force a referendum on the Scottsdale City Council's approval of the project was not a legal committee.
The judge's ruling hinged on the claim by the developer's attorneys that the group in question, Height and Density, didn't state that it opposed the project as required by state law, and that invalidated the petitions.
From the AZ Republic article on the ruling -
[Note - The EV Tribune's coverage is here.]
At the end of the proceedings, the City stated that it would not appeal the ruling if the developers declined to seek compensation for the attorney's fees that it incurred in the case.
An interesting aspect of the case is that the Scottsdale's City Attorney's office was tasked with defending the petitions and the group; if their defense was successful, it would have set the stage to have a City decision overturned by the voters.
While I can't comment on the technical aspects of the ruling (I'm not sure of the precise requirements of notification in the law), I can state that I never saw the group (Height and Density) try to conceal its opposition to the Hanover Project in any way; in fact, they were totally open, even blunt, about it.
Another interesting aspect of the case, even to those unfamiliar with the technical aspects cited in the ruling - the judge, Peter Swann, and the developer, The Hanover Companies, run in the same circles, as indicated by this flyer for a construction/development industry legal seminar from 2006. Both the judge in this case and a representative from Hanover were presenters on different panels.
So let me sum up -
The organization defending the petitions (the Scottsdale City Attorney's office) had a vested interested in not winning the case, and the judge presiding over the case (Judge Swann) is part of a professional clique that includes developers (such as Hanover) but not average citizens.
Let me be clear here - I am *not* alleging corruption or anything illegal here, just that it's hard to believe that Height and Density, or any citizen group, ever had a chance at a fair hearing.
The system just isn't set up to allow it.
The judge's ruling hinged on the claim by the developer's attorneys that the group in question, Height and Density, didn't state that it opposed the project as required by state law, and that invalidated the petitions.
From the AZ Republic article on the ruling -
A referendum challenging the Hanover downtown redevelopment project was thrown out late Thursday, allowing the project to proceed.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Swann ruled that an activist group calling itself Height and Density was not a legal committee and that made the petitions it filed to put the Hanover project before the voters invalid.
[Note - The EV Tribune's coverage is here.]
At the end of the proceedings, the City stated that it would not appeal the ruling if the developers declined to seek compensation for the attorney's fees that it incurred in the case.
An interesting aspect of the case is that the Scottsdale's City Attorney's office was tasked with defending the petitions and the group; if their defense was successful, it would have set the stage to have a City decision overturned by the voters.
While I can't comment on the technical aspects of the ruling (I'm not sure of the precise requirements of notification in the law), I can state that I never saw the group (Height and Density) try to conceal its opposition to the Hanover Project in any way; in fact, they were totally open, even blunt, about it.
Another interesting aspect of the case, even to those unfamiliar with the technical aspects cited in the ruling - the judge, Peter Swann, and the developer, The Hanover Companies, run in the same circles, as indicated by this flyer for a construction/development industry legal seminar from 2006. Both the judge in this case and a representative from Hanover were presenters on different panels.
So let me sum up -
The organization defending the petitions (the Scottsdale City Attorney's office) had a vested interested in not winning the case, and the judge presiding over the case (Judge Swann) is part of a professional clique that includes developers (such as Hanover) but not average citizens.
Let me be clear here - I am *not* alleging corruption or anything illegal here, just that it's hard to believe that Height and Density, or any citizen group, ever had a chance at a fair hearing.
The system just isn't set up to allow it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Brilliant idea, that privatization of all government functions
This post will tick off the blindly ideological talking heads at the Goldwater Institute, ALEC, and the like, and will certainly rouse the ire of their elected water carriers like Jeff Flake, but there are *many* governmental functions that are utterly necessary but that the private sector cannot be relied up to perform.
The latest example? Troops that have served their tours of duty in Iraq cannot return home because of a lack of private airline flights.
From The Military Times -
I suppose it could be part of a wily Pentagon scheme to ratchet up 'stop loss' without doing so officially, but this really just reeks of "let's use our troops as an excuse to funnel defense money to corporate America, and if it gets messed up, who cares? They're only troops, right?"
Regardless of your opinion of the war, everyone should call out the Bush Administration on its never-ending contempt for the welfare of active-duty servicemembers and veterans.
It's despicable.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) statement on the troops' plight here; the Vermont delegation's letter to the Secretary of Defense here.
Later!
The latest example? Troops that have served their tours of duty in Iraq cannot return home because of a lack of private airline flights.
From The Military Times -
Vermont soldiers who have completed their tours of duty in Iraq cannot get home because of flight delays caused in part by the recent bankruptcy of ATA Airlines, the Vermont congressional delegation said Wednesday.
I suppose it could be part of a wily Pentagon scheme to ratchet up 'stop loss' without doing so officially, but this really just reeks of "let's use our troops as an excuse to funnel defense money to corporate America, and if it gets messed up, who cares? They're only troops, right?"
Regardless of your opinion of the war, everyone should call out the Bush Administration on its never-ending contempt for the welfare of active-duty servicemembers and veterans.
It's despicable.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) statement on the troops' plight here; the Vermont delegation's letter to the Secretary of Defense here.
Later!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Senate Republicans take a stand...in favor of discrimination
From the New York Times -
The Republicans were worried that the measure's language to ease lawsuit-restricting time limits might result in some companies actually being held responsible for their discriminatory practices.
Can't have that, can we??
The bill is H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007; today's Senate vote was a procedural vote to invoke cloture, or to limit debate, on the bill. 56 Senators voted in favor, but 60 votes are needed to pass a cloture motion.
As would be expected by anyone familiar with their voting records, Arizona's own Jon Kyl (R-Big Pharma) voted against cloture, and John McCain (R-Cindy. What State Are We In Today?) missed the vote, though he did say that he would have opposed H.R. 2831 if he could be bothered to show up to work.
I supposed I could criticize them for failing to represent the interests of Arizona's working women, but since it's been years since they actually represented the interests of Arizona, none of today's proceedings were unexpected.
It should be noted that McCain's Democratic counterparts in the race for the White House, Senators Clinton and Obama, somehow found ways to take time out of their very active campaign schedules to show up and vote while the unopposed McCain declined to do so.
The New Republic's take on today's vote here.
An ACLU press release on the vote here.
Later!
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.
The Republicans were worried that the measure's language to ease lawsuit-restricting time limits might result in some companies actually being held responsible for their discriminatory practices.
Can't have that, can we??
The bill is H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007; today's Senate vote was a procedural vote to invoke cloture, or to limit debate, on the bill. 56 Senators voted in favor, but 60 votes are needed to pass a cloture motion.
As would be expected by anyone familiar with their voting records, Arizona's own Jon Kyl (R-Big Pharma) voted against cloture, and John McCain (R-Cindy. What State Are We In Today?) missed the vote, though he did say that he would have opposed H.R. 2831 if he could be bothered to show up to work.
I supposed I could criticize them for failing to represent the interests of Arizona's working women, but since it's been years since they actually represented the interests of Arizona, none of today's proceedings were unexpected.
It should be noted that McCain's Democratic counterparts in the race for the White House, Senators Clinton and Obama, somehow found ways to take time out of their very active campaign schedules to show up and vote while the unopposed McCain declined to do so.
The New Republic's take on today's vote here.
An ACLU press release on the vote here.
Later!
Mitchell leads main Republican rivals in latest poll
PolitickerAZ has the results of a recent CD5 poll comparing Congressman Harry Mitchell to two of the Republican candidates trying to unseat him, former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert and former state representative Laura Knaperek.
(Marty at Wactivist.com and Zelph at AZNetRoots already have their takes on the info, at the links)
According to the PolitickerAZ story, in head-to-head matchups, Mitchell leads Schweikert by a 50% to 23% margin and Knaperek by 49% to 26%.
This is great news for Mitchell and his supporters because while this year shapes up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general, they still have a serious registration advantage in CD5 (42% - 28%). For this cycle and the next (2010) CD5 is going to be a tough test for any Democrat, even Harry Mitchell.
In 2012, the effects of redistricting should be felt, but God only knows what those are going to be (and God won't know what those are until the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission tells Him what they are :) ).
Until then, however, CD5 is going to be a tempting target for every Republican who's ever run a campaign (or, like Jim Ogsbury, who's ever just given money to a campaign.)
As for this year's campaign, in Marty's post over at Wactivist, he opines that Laura Knaperek may be the Reps' best hope to defeat Mitchell, but I'm not sure I agree.
She *does* have the organization and the experience to run an effective general election campaign, a fact that CD5 Republican primary voters will remember, but she also has experience in running campaigns that were defeated by Harry Mitchell.
Another fact that primary voters will be sure to remember.
She also has high negatives, in that she is part of the radical right wing segment of her party, and while there are a lot of Republicans in CD5, they tend to be part of the "Chamber of Commerce" wing.
She's probably not getting out of the primary, though with her experience and focus (OK, it's less 'focus' and more 'obsession' on Harry Mitchell) she will make a fight of it.
David Schweikert may not have raised as much money as the RNCC poo-bahs would prefer, he still presents the lower negatives of the two - he's as reliably conservative as Knaperek but hasn't ticked off as many people over the years as she has (her habit of throwing ballot-mates in legislative races under the bus at the earliest opportunity could come back to haunt her.)
And Jim Ogsbury and Mark Anderson? Professional lobbyist Ogsbury has serious name rec problems in the district, as does Mesa state rep Anderson. In addition, Anderson is running on a platform that includes the planks that Congress "has too much partisan bickering" and "too many scandals."
Somebody should remind him that it's not 2006 and he's not running against JD Hayworth.
Anyway, I haven't seen anything that indicates that Anderson or Ogsbury have a real chance to win this year's CD5 Republican primary.
The American Hospital Association, the sponsor of the poll, apparently agree with me - their poll didn't include either Ogsbury or Anderson.
Later!
(Marty at Wactivist.com and Zelph at AZNetRoots already have their takes on the info, at the links)
According to the PolitickerAZ story, in head-to-head matchups, Mitchell leads Schweikert by a 50% to 23% margin and Knaperek by 49% to 26%.
This is great news for Mitchell and his supporters because while this year shapes up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general, they still have a serious registration advantage in CD5 (42% - 28%). For this cycle and the next (2010) CD5 is going to be a tough test for any Democrat, even Harry Mitchell.
In 2012, the effects of redistricting should be felt, but God only knows what those are going to be (and God won't know what those are until the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission tells Him what they are :) ).
Until then, however, CD5 is going to be a tempting target for every Republican who's ever run a campaign (or, like Jim Ogsbury, who's ever just given money to a campaign.)
As for this year's campaign, in Marty's post over at Wactivist, he opines that Laura Knaperek may be the Reps' best hope to defeat Mitchell, but I'm not sure I agree.
She *does* have the organization and the experience to run an effective general election campaign, a fact that CD5 Republican primary voters will remember, but she also has experience in running campaigns that were defeated by Harry Mitchell.
Another fact that primary voters will be sure to remember.
She also has high negatives, in that she is part of the radical right wing segment of her party, and while there are a lot of Republicans in CD5, they tend to be part of the "Chamber of Commerce" wing.
She's probably not getting out of the primary, though with her experience and focus (OK, it's less 'focus' and more 'obsession' on Harry Mitchell) she will make a fight of it.
David Schweikert may not have raised as much money as the RNCC poo-bahs would prefer, he still presents the lower negatives of the two - he's as reliably conservative as Knaperek but hasn't ticked off as many people over the years as she has (her habit of throwing ballot-mates in legislative races under the bus at the earliest opportunity could come back to haunt her.)
And Jim Ogsbury and Mark Anderson? Professional lobbyist Ogsbury has serious name rec problems in the district, as does Mesa state rep Anderson. In addition, Anderson is running on a platform that includes the planks that Congress "has too much partisan bickering" and "too many scandals."
Somebody should remind him that it's not 2006 and he's not running against JD Hayworth.
Anyway, I haven't seen anything that indicates that Anderson or Ogsbury have a real chance to win this year's CD5 Republican primary.
The American Hospital Association, the sponsor of the poll, apparently agree with me - their poll didn't include either Ogsbury or Anderson.
Later!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Stop loss
This story has been around for years, and has been covered many times before, but something happened this weekend that reminded me that while certain stories are well-known to folks who are directly affected by the stories or are politically active, they are still 'breaking news' to folks who aren't directly affected or aren't as politically active.
In short, it's not *new* news, but it rates a post.
While at work this weekend, one of my colleagues (who is as apolitical a person as I know), stopped by and mentioned that he saw the movie "Stop Loss" last week and was surprised to hear about the Pentagon's 'stop loss' policy that forces service men and women to stay in the military even after their terms of enlistment have expired. In addition, the policy forbids affected soldiers from transferring to non-combat units while under 'stop loss' orders.
The policy is used when the affected branch of the military doesn't have enough incoming recruits to replace outgoing veterans.
Not only are the lives of the affected servicemembers disrupted, so are the lives of their families, who don't know when their loved ones are returning home to stay.
It's a policy that has been used by all of the services since 9/11, but only the Army still uses it to any significant extent. According to this article from Stars and Stripes, they expect to use it until at least the summer of 2009.
A 2008 USA Today article on the current ramifications of the policy here.
A 2004 Army press release on the program here.
Later!
In short, it's not *new* news, but it rates a post.
While at work this weekend, one of my colleagues (who is as apolitical a person as I know), stopped by and mentioned that he saw the movie "Stop Loss" last week and was surprised to hear about the Pentagon's 'stop loss' policy that forces service men and women to stay in the military even after their terms of enlistment have expired. In addition, the policy forbids affected soldiers from transferring to non-combat units while under 'stop loss' orders.
The policy is used when the affected branch of the military doesn't have enough incoming recruits to replace outgoing veterans.
Not only are the lives of the affected servicemembers disrupted, so are the lives of their families, who don't know when their loved ones are returning home to stay.
It's a policy that has been used by all of the services since 9/11, but only the Army still uses it to any significant extent. According to this article from Stars and Stripes, they expect to use it until at least the summer of 2009.
A 2008 USA Today article on the current ramifications of the policy here.
A 2004 Army press release on the program here.
Later!
Convention 101
The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) has a useful feature on the convention's website, DemConvention.com.
Convention 101 details many of the, well, "details" of the convention in August and the events leading up to it.
Interested folks should regularly visit the site for updates as the convention approaches.
Lesson one covers many aspects that people are already at least vaguely familiar with - the selection of a convention site and delegate allocation and selection (lists of certified delegates here). Lesson one does offer some insights into three standing convention committees - the Credentials Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Platform Committee.
The Credentials Committee "determines and resolves issues concerning the recognition and seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention." It will meet prior to the convention to formulate a report, in a public meeting that is almost certain to generate interest from both party faithful and the general public. (Note: the meetings of all of the standing committees are open to the public.)
Florida and Michigan, anyone??
LOL- should be loads of fun, but unless the meetings are in the Phoenix area, I probably won't be able to attend one. :))
The Rules Committee "recommends the procedural rules of the Convention, the agenda, the officers of the Convention and other matters not covered by the other committees."
The Platform Committee "prepares a document delineating the Party’s position on a variety of issues." The platform is then voted on by the delegates at the convention.
Lesson two covers the convention itself.
The preliminary schedule (think "hint of an idea of an outline of a schedule") for the conventions -
Monday - convention opening, Credentials Committee and Rules Committee reports, and keynote address. (Note - the keynote speaker has not been selected as yet.)
Tuesday - discussion and debate on the platform.
Wednesday - formal nomination of the Party's presidential nominee.
Thursday - nomination of the Party's vice-presidential candidate and the presidential nominee's formal acceptance speech.
Ongoing - the delegates' days will usually start with a state delegation breakfast meeting (probably in the delegate hotels), followed by caucus meetings and training sessions. Convention floor proceedings will generally commence during the late afternoon ("late afternoon" in Denver time is "prime time" in the Eastern Time Zone.)
Chapter two of lesson two covers delegate voting at the convention. There's nothing earth-shattering here - the most salient point is that "pledged" delegates don't actually have to vote for the candidate that they pledged to support.
Alternate delegates step in if a pledged delegate is unable to perform their duties, either temporarily or permanently.
Finally, a candidate secures the nomination when he or she receives 2025 delegate votes. That total does not include Florida's or Michigan's delegates, so the number required could change depending on the Credentials Committee report.
More later!
Convention 101 details many of the, well, "details" of the convention in August and the events leading up to it.
Interested folks should regularly visit the site for updates as the convention approaches.
Lesson one covers many aspects that people are already at least vaguely familiar with - the selection of a convention site and delegate allocation and selection (lists of certified delegates here). Lesson one does offer some insights into three standing convention committees - the Credentials Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Platform Committee.
The Credentials Committee "determines and resolves issues concerning the recognition and seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention." It will meet prior to the convention to formulate a report, in a public meeting that is almost certain to generate interest from both party faithful and the general public. (Note: the meetings of all of the standing committees are open to the public.)
Florida and Michigan, anyone??
LOL- should be loads of fun, but unless the meetings are in the Phoenix area, I probably won't be able to attend one. :))
The Rules Committee "recommends the procedural rules of the Convention, the agenda, the officers of the Convention and other matters not covered by the other committees."
The Platform Committee "prepares a document delineating the Party’s position on a variety of issues." The platform is then voted on by the delegates at the convention.
"Decisions concerning the number and locations of Platform hearings and meetings will be made later in the spring. Under the Democratic Party’s rules, any person may submit a written statement concerning the platform to the Platform Committee at any time prior to the Committee’s meeting. In addition, any person may request permission to testify at a public hearing and/or forum. Individuals interested in learning more about the Platform drafting process should e-mail platform[at]dnc.org."
Lesson two covers the convention itself.
The preliminary schedule (think "hint of an idea of an outline of a schedule") for the conventions -
Monday - convention opening, Credentials Committee and Rules Committee reports, and keynote address. (Note - the keynote speaker has not been selected as yet.)
Tuesday - discussion and debate on the platform.
Wednesday - formal nomination of the Party's presidential nominee.
Thursday - nomination of the Party's vice-presidential candidate and the presidential nominee's formal acceptance speech.
Ongoing - the delegates' days will usually start with a state delegation breakfast meeting (probably in the delegate hotels), followed by caucus meetings and training sessions. Convention floor proceedings will generally commence during the late afternoon ("late afternoon" in Denver time is "prime time" in the Eastern Time Zone.)
Chapter two of lesson two covers delegate voting at the convention. There's nothing earth-shattering here - the most salient point is that "pledged" delegates don't actually have to vote for the candidate that they pledged to support.
Alternate delegates step in if a pledged delegate is unable to perform their duties, either temporarily or permanently.
Finally, a candidate secures the nomination when he or she receives 2025 delegate votes. That total does not include Florida's or Michigan's delegates, so the number required could change depending on the Credentials Committee report.
More later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)