Due to the general hubbub of the myriad races on the ballot and the economic meltdown precipitated on Wall Street, and a change in my personal work schedule that limits my ability to research, comment, and post, I haven't focused much attention on one of the most important races in the Valley this year.
Specifically, the one where long-time Tempe (and Arizona!) icon Congressman Harry Mitchell is facing a challenge from former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert.
In a fair world, Mitchell would win the race in a walkover - he's spent over four decades serving his community as a teacher, mayor, and legislator.
As a Congressman, he's continued his service to his community and his constituents in a number of ways.
On the *big* issues, he has continued work to see that veterans receive all of the benefits that they've so richly earned, to ensure that Arizona's public safety agencies receive all of the available assistance that they need during this period of broken budgets at the local, county, and state levels and to ask the EPA hard questions when poison started flowing from the taps in parts of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.
Yet in all of his efforts on those "big" issues and others, he has never neglected his roots in Arizona, sitting down with and listening to his constituents, mentoring the next generation of community leaders and recognizing the efforts of community activists.
In a fair world, the lifetime of public service and the continued hard work for his community would be more than enough to merit returning Harry Mitchell to Congress.
However, a certain small wing (OK, a large and nearly all-emcompassing wing :) ) of the Republican Party feels that public service and hard work isn't part of an elected official's duties, hence the candidacy of David Schweikert and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of support from purely ideological groups such as the NRA and The Feedom Project (the one dedicated to electing conservative Republicans, not the one dedicated turning released prisoners into forces for peace in their communities nor the one dedicated to freeing wrongfully convicted prisoners - neither of which serves Republican ideals). The reactionary anti-government group Club for Growth has funded a series of TV spots attacking Harry Mitchell and promoting Schweikert (mostly attacking Mitchell).
There is nothing about Schweikert, his campaign platform, or his ideological backers that indicates he is campaigning to represent the residents of CD5.
If he is elected, the "constituents" he serves will be the out-of-state ideologues and PACs that are bankrolling his campaign.
In a fair world, the keep doing his life's work, Harry Mitchell wouldn't need than our votes from us.
As we all know, though, the world isn't fair.
Harry Mitchell needs our help, both in terms of financial contributions and in terms of volunteers for his campaign. Beside the two web links in the last sentence, the campaign can be contacted at 480.755.3343. Also, the AZ Dems' coordinated campaign needs volunteers for the last two weeks of the election cycle and can be contacted at 480.820.2298.
Later...
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
LD17 Ad Watch - Update
Turns out a brief examination of the campaign finance records of Mark Thompson and Jesse Hernandez, Republican candidates for House and Senate in LD17 respectively, is *very* enlightening.
It seems that, in violation of CCEC rules barring the expenditure of primary funds for general election expenses, they may have used their primary money from CCEC to pay for a TV spot created to run *after* the September 2 primary.
And while the Reps and their mouthpieces are certain to protest this characterization, saying that the spot was intended for use in the primary election cycle, the spot is an attack ad targeting their *general* election opponents. Hmmmm...
From Thompson's post-primary finance report, covering the period from August 14 to September 22 -
August 22 - Received $12921 from Clean Elections.
August 24 - Spent $1350 with Q2 Productions for "production cost" on a TV ad.
August 26 - Spent $3045 with Gene, Ganssle for a TV air time buy.
August 29 - Spent $2300 with Gene Ganssle for a TV air time purchase.
That's $6695 of primary election funding spent on the TV spot less than a week and a half before an uncontested primary.
From Hernandez' post-primary finance report, covering the same period as Thompson's -
August 28 - Received $12921 from Clean Elections.
August 29 - Spent $1554 with Gene Ganssle for "TV".
August 31 - Spent $1350 with Gene Ganssle for "production cost".
September 1 - Spent $1000 with Connie Thompson (aka - "Mrs. Mark Thompson") for "consultant services" (not really relevant to this post, but interesting nonetheless).
That's $2904 of primary election funding spent on a TV spot, less than five days before an uncontested primary.
Now, CCEC rules allow for the use during the general election period of goods and services purchased with primary election funding, under certain circumstances.
From CCEC rules, section R2-20-106, paragraph G (aka page 37) (emphasis mine)-
Ummm...given the short time between contracting for the production of the TV ad in very late August and the primary on September 2, it seems that their "diligence" was directed to toward *spending* their primary funding, not *using* the goods and services purchased during the primary.
Of course, that's assuming that they didn't contract for the production and airtime before receiving the primary election funding, which is an entirely different set of violations. :)
Either way, Thompson and Hernandez may have some explaining/spinning to do when the Clean Elections Commission comes around asking questions.
I wonder if either one will earn the nickname "Pinocchio" after that conversation. :)
Today's lesson for candidates? Get your Clean Elections $5s in as early as possible, even when running unopposed in the primary. Candidates for lege trying to spend more than $12K in less than 10 days is just asking for a violation.
Later!
It seems that, in violation of CCEC rules barring the expenditure of primary funds for general election expenses, they may have used their primary money from CCEC to pay for a TV spot created to run *after* the September 2 primary.
And while the Reps and their mouthpieces are certain to protest this characterization, saying that the spot was intended for use in the primary election cycle, the spot is an attack ad targeting their *general* election opponents. Hmmmm...
From Thompson's post-primary finance report, covering the period from August 14 to September 22 -
August 22 - Received $12921 from Clean Elections.
August 24 - Spent $1350 with Q2 Productions for "production cost" on a TV ad.
August 26 - Spent $3045 with Gene, Ganssle for a TV air time buy.
August 29 - Spent $2300 with Gene Ganssle for a TV air time purchase.
That's $6695 of primary election funding spent on the TV spot less than a week and a half before an uncontested primary.
From Hernandez' post-primary finance report, covering the same period as Thompson's -
August 28 - Received $12921 from Clean Elections.
August 29 - Spent $1554 with Gene Ganssle for "TV".
August 31 - Spent $1350 with Gene Ganssle for "production cost".
September 1 - Spent $1000 with Connie Thompson (aka - "Mrs. Mark Thompson") for "consultant services" (not really relevant to this post, but interesting nonetheless).
That's $2904 of primary election funding spent on a TV spot, less than five days before an uncontested primary.
Now, CCEC rules allow for the use during the general election period of goods and services purchased with primary election funding, under certain circumstances.
From CCEC rules, section R2-20-106, paragraph G (aka page 37) (emphasis mine)-
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-953(A), a participating candidate shall return to the Fund all of his or her primary election funds not committed to expenditures (1) during the primary election period; and (2) for goods or services directed to the primary election. A candidate shall not be deemed to have violated A.R.S. § 16-953(A) or this subsection on account of failure to use all materials purchased with primary election funds prior to the primary election, provided such candidate exercises good faith and diligent efforts to comply with the requirement that goods and services purchased with primary election funds be directed to the primary election.
Ummm...given the short time between contracting for the production of the TV ad in very late August and the primary on September 2, it seems that their "diligence" was directed to toward *spending* their primary funding, not *using* the goods and services purchased during the primary.
Of course, that's assuming that they didn't contract for the production and airtime before receiving the primary election funding, which is an entirely different set of violations. :)
Either way, Thompson and Hernandez may have some explaining/spinning to do when the Clean Elections Commission comes around asking questions.
I wonder if either one will earn the nickname "Pinocchio" after that conversation. :)
Today's lesson for candidates? Get your Clean Elections $5s in as early as possible, even when running unopposed in the primary. Candidates for lege trying to spend more than $12K in less than 10 days is just asking for a violation.
Later!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
LD17 Ad Watch
Jesse Hernandez and Mark Thompson, two of the three Republican candidates for the legislature in LD17, have teamed up to air a campaign spot bashing State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill and State Representatives Ed Ableser and David Schapira.
"Bashing" is all that it is, too. It seems to be all that the Republicans have this year.
And this being an election year and all, that wouldn't normally rate a blog post. Attack ads aren't exactly unheard-of during even numbered years.
However, this spot is so cheesy and sloppily insulting that it is less campaign rhetoric and more schoolyard taunts.
The spot begins by showing three crudely drawn mouse figures with the faces of Burton-Cahill, Ableser and Schapira pasted on them while something resembling the song "Three Blind Mice" plays in the background.
The spot first captured my attention when I heard it playing on a cable news channel.
They absolutely massacred the pronounciation of Ed Ableser's last name, making it sound like it is spelled "Ablazzarrr."
I was going to poke a little fun at them for making such a bush-league mistake as not getting their opponent's name right, but after watching the entire ad, I'm not so sure it was a mistake.
Moments later the mouse bearing Senator Burton-Cahill's face is pictured losing her balance, and with her cane flailing, falling over the edge of whatever she is standing on (the artwork for the spot is *really* low-grade).
It seems to be a clear jab at her medical issues involving her ankle. She spent much of last year hobbled by that ankle and needed a cane for support.
Deliberately mispronouncing one opponent's name and making fun of another's medical problems? Are they adults running for public office or for punk kids running for recess bully?
Sheesh...
Anyway, another curious thing that I've noticed beyond this spot is the teaming up of Hernandez and Thompson on signage (as well as this spot) while their fellow Republican candidate Wes Waddle is all but frozen out. I'm not sure what is going on there, but I almost titled this post "Whither Wes Waddle?" if only for the alliterative effect. :)
However, the post isn't really about him, and the actual title, while incredibly boring, describes the content of the post far more accurately.
Later!
"Bashing" is all that it is, too. It seems to be all that the Republicans have this year.
And this being an election year and all, that wouldn't normally rate a blog post. Attack ads aren't exactly unheard-of during even numbered years.
However, this spot is so cheesy and sloppily insulting that it is less campaign rhetoric and more schoolyard taunts.
The spot begins by showing three crudely drawn mouse figures with the faces of Burton-Cahill, Ableser and Schapira pasted on them while something resembling the song "Three Blind Mice" plays in the background.
The spot first captured my attention when I heard it playing on a cable news channel.
They absolutely massacred the pronounciation of Ed Ableser's last name, making it sound like it is spelled "Ablazzarrr."
I was going to poke a little fun at them for making such a bush-league mistake as not getting their opponent's name right, but after watching the entire ad, I'm not so sure it was a mistake.
Moments later the mouse bearing Senator Burton-Cahill's face is pictured losing her balance, and with her cane flailing, falling over the edge of whatever she is standing on (the artwork for the spot is *really* low-grade).
It seems to be a clear jab at her medical issues involving her ankle. She spent much of last year hobbled by that ankle and needed a cane for support.
Deliberately mispronouncing one opponent's name and making fun of another's medical problems? Are they adults running for public office or for punk kids running for recess bully?
Sheesh...
Anyway, another curious thing that I've noticed beyond this spot is the teaming up of Hernandez and Thompson on signage (as well as this spot) while their fellow Republican candidate Wes Waddle is all but frozen out. I'm not sure what is going on there, but I almost titled this post "Whither Wes Waddle?" if only for the alliterative effect. :)
However, the post isn't really about him, and the actual title, while incredibly boring, describes the content of the post far more accurately.
Later!
The Truth About Barack Obama (repost)
There are still a large number of smear/hate emails circulating about Barack Obama, and with the rising anti-Obama fervor stoked by the McCain/Palin campaign at their rallies, it means that it's time to repost some links to information that debunk many of the common smears about Senator Obama.
This was originally posted on March 14, 2008 -
Subject: The Real Truth About Barack Obama!
As enthusiastic volunteers in the Barack Obama campaign for the Presidency, we have put together a list of facts about Barack so that you will know the truth about him. Please follow the links we have included for documentation of these facts. If you value the truth as we do, please spread this information via email, blog, or any other means, to everyone you know.
Did you know that Barack Obama is a devout Christian? He has been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for 20 years, and was married there to his wife Michelle in 1992.
Did you know that Barack Obama often leads the US Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Did you know that Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and has spoken out strongly against anti-Semitism?
Did you know his grandparents from Kansas were part of the "Greatest Generation?. His grandfather served with Patton's Army during World War II, and his grandmother, a real "Rosie the Riveter", worked in a bomber assembly plant back home.
Did you know that Barack Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one, before we invaded, even while he was running for the Senate, and knowing his opposition might be politically unpopular?
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." --Barack Obama, 2002
Did you know Obama favors transparency over secrecy in our government? Did you know that Obama worked with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to pass one of the strongest government transparency bills since the freedom of information act? He's calling it Google for Government and you can see the results at www.usaspending.gov. Sen. Obama has also released his own tax returns for public review.
Did you know that after graduating with honors from Harvard Law School, Barack practiced civil rights law and also taught Constitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago, one of the nation's best law schools, where he was consistentl y rated by his students as one of their best instructors? Did you also know that he was the first African-American elected pres ident of the prestigious Harvard Law Review?
Did you know that Barack Obama is an outspoken advocate for women's rights and has been a principled defender of the civil rights of women?
Did you know that despite the grueling schedule of running for President, Senator Obama remains a devoted family man, making time to do things like pick out a Christmas tree with his wife and two young daughters, or hurrying home to spend Valentine's Day with them? Did you know he hasn't missed a single parent-teacher conference while running for President?
Did you know that Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?
Did you know that Barack Obama has been an elected legislator longer than Senator Clinton?
Did you know that Barack is a member of all of these Senate Committees: Foreign Relations; Veteran's Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security and Government Affairs?
Did you know that Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law, and has introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted since he joined the Senate in 2005?
Did you know that Senator Obama sponsored legislation working together with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, to keep Americans safe by keeping dangerous weapons out of terrorist hands? The two senators also visited the former Soviet Union to inspect the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Sen. Lugar said of Sen. Obama, "He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future."
Did you know that Barack Obama is the only candidate running for president who voted against using cluster bombs in Iraq and the only candidate who supports banning the use of landmines?
Did you know that, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama succeeded in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of police interrogations, gaining the respect and support not only of fellow legislators but that of the police, who had initially opposed the legislation?
Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all younger when they took office than Barack Obama will be?
During election season many emails are circulated about the candidates. Some are true, some aren't. It's often difficult to determine the truth. We encourage you to visit the following non-partisan sites that do a good job of fact checking the candidates. http://www.snopes.com/http://www.factcheck.org/
Source: Daily Kos; thanks for the heads-up go out to The Richmond Democrat.
I didn't check all of the links to see if they are still good; if you find one that's broken, let me know in a comment, and I'll try to fix it.
Later!
This was originally posted on March 14, 2008 -
Subject: The Real Truth About Barack Obama!
As enthusiastic volunteers in the Barack Obama campaign for the Presidency, we have put together a list of facts about Barack so that you will know the truth about him. Please follow the links we have included for documentation of these facts. If you value the truth as we do, please spread this information via email, blog, or any other means, to everyone you know.
Did you know that Barack Obama is a devout Christian? He has been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for 20 years, and was married there to his wife Michelle in 1992.
Did you know that Barack Obama often leads the US Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Did you know that Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and has spoken out strongly against anti-Semitism?
Did you know his grandparents from Kansas were part of the "Greatest Generation?. His grandfather served with Patton's Army during World War II, and his grandmother, a real "Rosie the Riveter", worked in a bomber assembly plant back home.
Did you know that Barack Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one, before we invaded, even while he was running for the Senate, and knowing his opposition might be politically unpopular?
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." --Barack Obama, 2002
Did you know Obama favors transparency over secrecy in our government? Did you know that Obama worked with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to pass one of the strongest government transparency bills since the freedom of information act? He's calling it Google for Government and you can see the results at www.usaspending.gov. Sen. Obama has also released his own tax returns for public review.
Did you know that after graduating with honors from Harvard Law School, Barack practiced civil rights law and also taught Constitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago, one of the nation's best law schools, where he was consistentl y rated by his students as one of their best instructors? Did you also know that he was the first African-American elected pres ident of the prestigious Harvard Law Review?
Did you know that Barack Obama is an outspoken advocate for women's rights and has been a principled defender of the civil rights of women?
Did you know that despite the grueling schedule of running for President, Senator Obama remains a devoted family man, making time to do things like pick out a Christmas tree with his wife and two young daughters, or hurrying home to spend Valentine's Day with them? Did you know he hasn't missed a single parent-teacher conference while running for President?
Did you know that Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?
Did you know that Barack Obama has been an elected legislator longer than Senator Clinton?
Did you know that Barack is a member of all of these Senate Committees: Foreign Relations; Veteran's Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security and Government Affairs?
Did you know that Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law, and has introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted since he joined the Senate in 2005?
Did you know that Senator Obama sponsored legislation working together with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, to keep Americans safe by keeping dangerous weapons out of terrorist hands? The two senators also visited the former Soviet Union to inspect the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Sen. Lugar said of Sen. Obama, "He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future."
Did you know that Barack Obama is the only candidate running for president who voted against using cluster bombs in Iraq and the only candidate who supports banning the use of landmines?
Did you know that, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama succeeded in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of police interrogations, gaining the respect and support not only of fellow legislators but that of the police, who had initially opposed the legislation?
Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all younger when they took office than Barack Obama will be?
During election season many emails are circulated about the candidates. Some are true, some aren't. It's often difficult to determine the truth. We encourage you to visit the following non-partisan sites that do a good job of fact checking the candidates. http://www.snopes.com/http://www.factcheck.org/
Source: Daily Kos; thanks for the heads-up go out to The Richmond Democrat.
I didn't check all of the links to see if they are still good; if you find one that's broken, let me know in a comment, and I'll try to fix it.
Later!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Upon further review...
First the NFL did it, then MLB instituted their own version, now Random Musings has implemented a form of instant replay review...
:)
Last week, I filled out and returned by ballot for November's election.
I have come to reconsider my "Yes" vote on one of the ballot questions, Prop 202, aka "Stop Illegal Hiring." The business-backed measure makes some changes to Arizona's nativist-written (in the shape of Russell Pearce [R-National Alliance]) employer sanctions law, lightening the burden on businesses.
As I noted last week, I kind of wished that both sides on this one could lose this one.
I ended up voting "Yes" because I find Pearce and his ilk more objectionable (barely!) than the wage-suppressing (and worker-safety suppressing and human-rights suppressing) agriculture and construction businesses that tend to hire the most undocumented immigrants.
While my feelings regarding AZ's nativists haven't changed, I have changed my mind on what is the appropriate position regarding Prop 200.
One of the few "good" points of the original employer sanctions measure was that it was generated by the lege, hence it could be changed by a simple act of the legislature (well, changed upon the signature of the Governor, anyway. :) )
If Prop 202 is passed by the voters, none of the language of the measure can be changed by the lege (Article 4, Part 1, Section 1, of the AZ Constitution), no matter what unexpected consequences arise from Prop 202.
As such, while I cannot change my vote, people who haven't yet cast their ballots should consider voting "No" on Prop 202.
:)
Last week, I filled out and returned by ballot for November's election.
I have come to reconsider my "Yes" vote on one of the ballot questions, Prop 202, aka "Stop Illegal Hiring." The business-backed measure makes some changes to Arizona's nativist-written (in the shape of Russell Pearce [R-National Alliance]) employer sanctions law, lightening the burden on businesses.
As I noted last week, I kind of wished that both sides on this one could lose this one.
I ended up voting "Yes" because I find Pearce and his ilk more objectionable (barely!) than the wage-suppressing (and worker-safety suppressing and human-rights suppressing) agriculture and construction businesses that tend to hire the most undocumented immigrants.
While my feelings regarding AZ's nativists haven't changed, I have changed my mind on what is the appropriate position regarding Prop 200.
One of the few "good" points of the original employer sanctions measure was that it was generated by the lege, hence it could be changed by a simple act of the legislature (well, changed upon the signature of the Governor, anyway. :) )
If Prop 202 is passed by the voters, none of the language of the measure can be changed by the lege (Article 4, Part 1, Section 1, of the AZ Constitution), no matter what unexpected consequences arise from Prop 202.
As such, while I cannot change my vote, people who haven't yet cast their ballots should consider voting "No" on Prop 202.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Arpaio Ad Watch
Many of you who live in the Phoenix area and have a TV hooked up to Cox Cable are certain to have seen Joe Arpaio's latest TV spot in his quest to fend of challenger Dan Saban.
The ad gives him a grade of "A" or "A+" in many areas; let's look a little more closely at those -
Crime Clearance - The ad states that the MCSO's clearance rate is 75%; it's actually almost 20 points lower.
Response Times - The ad states that the MCSO's response times are lower. That may or may not be true (I really don't know), but response times are still 40% higher than what they should be (7 minutes instead of 5 minutes, according to the same story linked above).
Jail Management - The ad states that the Maricopa County jails are a "model of excellence" but ignores the fact that those same jails have lost their accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care because of the inadequate health care provided to detainees. In a flip-flop that deserves an award of the stinkiest Crappie sort, Arpaio is now blaming Correctional Health Services for the revokation of the accreditation; in 2004, he wrote that " 'delivery of health care services" is "the constitutional mandate of the sheriff'."
Deporting Illegal Immigrants - The ad claims that he has "deported nearly 20,000 illegals." No word about the 70000 outstanding warrants that his office is ignoring in order to carry out his anti-immigrant jihad.
Saving Taxpayers Money - The ad generically claims that Arpaio "saves taxpayers millions." Imagine how well he'd do in this area if he wasn't the "most sued sheriff in America," costing County taxpayers more than $40 million (and counting). Or if he didn't spend MCSO funds on junkets to Honduras for some of his favorite deputies.
Staying Within His Budget - Only when he's forced to do so, and even then, he tries to sacrifice detainee rights on the altar of his nativism (like trying to limit attorney access to detainees in Maricopa County jail.)
Another interesting aspect to Arpaio's spot is that he didn't actually campaign against his opponent Dan Saban. Didn't even acknowledge his existence (sort of like John McCain's demeanor toward Barack Obama during their televised debates).
Instead, he campaigned against the EV Tribune and the AZ Republic, urging people to throw their editions of those papers into the trash.
Guess he's still ticked off over their being ticked off that he went after journalists (the New Times' arrests) whose only crime was to report stories that were critical of Arpaio and his saddle partner, Andy Thomas.
Later!
The ad can be found here, courtesy ABC15.com or here, courtesy YouTube.
The ad gives him a grade of "A" or "A+" in many areas; let's look a little more closely at those -
Crime Clearance - The ad states that the MCSO's clearance rate is 75%; it's actually almost 20 points lower.
Response Times - The ad states that the MCSO's response times are lower. That may or may not be true (I really don't know), but response times are still 40% higher than what they should be (7 minutes instead of 5 minutes, according to the same story linked above).
Jail Management - The ad states that the Maricopa County jails are a "model of excellence" but ignores the fact that those same jails have lost their accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care because of the inadequate health care provided to detainees. In a flip-flop that deserves an award of the stinkiest Crappie sort, Arpaio is now blaming Correctional Health Services for the revokation of the accreditation; in 2004, he wrote that " 'delivery of health care services" is "the constitutional mandate of the sheriff'."
Deporting Illegal Immigrants - The ad claims that he has "deported nearly 20,000 illegals." No word about the 70000 outstanding warrants that his office is ignoring in order to carry out his anti-immigrant jihad.
Saving Taxpayers Money - The ad generically claims that Arpaio "saves taxpayers millions." Imagine how well he'd do in this area if he wasn't the "most sued sheriff in America," costing County taxpayers more than $40 million (and counting). Or if he didn't spend MCSO funds on junkets to Honduras for some of his favorite deputies.
Staying Within His Budget - Only when he's forced to do so, and even then, he tries to sacrifice detainee rights on the altar of his nativism (like trying to limit attorney access to detainees in Maricopa County jail.)
Another interesting aspect to Arpaio's spot is that he didn't actually campaign against his opponent Dan Saban. Didn't even acknowledge his existence (sort of like John McCain's demeanor toward Barack Obama during their televised debates).
Instead, he campaigned against the EV Tribune and the AZ Republic, urging people to throw their editions of those papers into the trash.
Guess he's still ticked off over their being ticked off that he went after journalists (the New Times' arrests) whose only crime was to report stories that were critical of Arpaio and his saddle partner, Andy Thomas.
Later!
The ad can be found here, courtesy ABC15.com or here, courtesy YouTube.
Magazine covers?!? They're complaining about a magazine cover now??
The McCain/Palin campaign is crying "foul!" over the cover of the new issue of Newsweek. The issue features a story about Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin (hence the cover pic of her).
The photo is an unretouched close up of Alaska's governor that shows some of the "flaws" that anyone in their mid-40s has, and the handlers of the Rep candidates find that objectionable.
Apparently, they believe it's part of a scheme by Newsweek to influence the election. (It's all over Fox News, but I refuse to link to them. Use Google if you don't already have FoxNews.com bookmarked.)
Wonder what they'll have to say about Equire Magazine's endorsement of Barack Obama, the first time in its history that the magazine has endorsed a presidential candidate? And how, on the cover of the issue proclaiming this momentous announcement, instead of a pic of Obama, they have a pic of Halle Berry, the subject of the issue's cover story - "The Sexiest Woman Alive"?
Note: The current cover (right) is a tribute to a classic cover with Bill Clinton from December 2000 (left).
Note2: While I always like an opportunity to poke a little fun at the Reps, this post is mostly just an excuse to put up a pic of Halle Berry. :)
I am *so* going to miss Jack Harper
...after Robert Boehlke wins the LD4 Senate seat in November...
Being an active blogger, I'm on about half a zillion mailing lists. Yesterday, I received a press release from Solutions Through Higher Education, an organization created to educate people on the value of higher education to our economy and country.
They sent out a survey to each candidate for a seat in the legislature. 23 candidates responded, including State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise!).
The question asked in the survey was "As a member of the Arizona Legislature, just how would you address the higher education challenges facing both our state and nation?"
Most of the candidates talked about prioritizing, tuition costs and funding sources (for example, Sylvia Allen, Russell Pearce's friend from LD5, wants to dig up education $ by mining more copper).
The answers given tended to range from mind-numbingly generic campaign pap to deeply involved and well-thought out treatises on the subject. However, wherever particular answers fell within that range, they addressed the question.
Then I read Jack Harper's response.
Harper's response -
He is *so* reliable.
He faced a strong primary challenge. He is facing a daunting general election challenge. And even if he does successfully retain his seat, he is facing the possibility of being in the minority party in the Lege.
Yet good ol' Jack can still find the time and energy to be unprofessional, arbitrary, and even simply snotty.
Since the rather "loquacious" JD Hayworth (meaning he never shut up :) ) was sent to the electoral showers in 2006 by Harry Mitchell, occasionally I had trouble coming up with material for this blog.
Jack was always there to bail me out. :))
Perhaps it was his habit as chair of the Senate Government Committee of berating witnesses who disagreed with his predetermined position on a bill.
Perhaps it was his days of criticizing U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *state* veterans' home.
Maybe it was his violations of the Senate's written rules of procedure and written and unwritten rules of decorum to kill Democratic measures or railroad through Republican ones.
Perhaps it was even ideas such as his bill to open up all primaries to registered Republicans while limiting voters registered in other parties to their own party's primary.
Whatever form it took though, Jack could be depended on to sweep away any writer's block.
Robert Boehlke will be a rational, professional and dedicated legislator for LD4; unfortunately, he won't provide anywhere near as much as subject material.
My loss. LD4's gain.
Later!
Being an active blogger, I'm on about half a zillion mailing lists. Yesterday, I received a press release from Solutions Through Higher Education, an organization created to educate people on the value of higher education to our economy and country.
They sent out a survey to each candidate for a seat in the legislature. 23 candidates responded, including State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise!).
The question asked in the survey was "As a member of the Arizona Legislature, just how would you address the higher education challenges facing both our state and nation?"
Most of the candidates talked about prioritizing, tuition costs and funding sources (for example, Sylvia Allen, Russell Pearce's friend from LD5, wants to dig up education $ by mining more copper).
The answers given tended to range from mind-numbingly generic campaign pap to deeply involved and well-thought out treatises on the subject. However, wherever particular answers fell within that range, they addressed the question.
Then I read Jack Harper's response.
Harper's response -
"Thank you for the opportunity to answer, but I completed every survey up to August 1st. Then I decided that I was finished. I hope to have your survey earlier next election.
He is *so* reliable.
He faced a strong primary challenge. He is facing a daunting general election challenge. And even if he does successfully retain his seat, he is facing the possibility of being in the minority party in the Lege.
Yet good ol' Jack can still find the time and energy to be unprofessional, arbitrary, and even simply snotty.
Since the rather "loquacious" JD Hayworth (meaning he never shut up :) ) was sent to the electoral showers in 2006 by Harry Mitchell, occasionally I had trouble coming up with material for this blog.
Jack was always there to bail me out. :))
Perhaps it was his habit as chair of the Senate Government Committee of berating witnesses who disagreed with his predetermined position on a bill.
Perhaps it was his days of criticizing U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *state* veterans' home.
Maybe it was his violations of the Senate's written rules of procedure and written and unwritten rules of decorum to kill Democratic measures or railroad through Republican ones.
Perhaps it was even ideas such as his bill to open up all primaries to registered Republicans while limiting voters registered in other parties to their own party's primary.
Whatever form it took though, Jack could be depended on to sweep away any writer's block.
Robert Boehlke will be a rational, professional and dedicated legislator for LD4; unfortunately, he won't provide anywhere near as much as subject material.
My loss. LD4's gain.
Later!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans rate members of Congress...AZ results
Heads up on this courtesy Ron Pies' AZCentral.com blog...
The grades of AZ's Congressional delegation, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund -
Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Note: Mitchell has just been endorsed by the VFW Political Action Committee.
Gabrelle Giffords (D-CD8) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Ed Pastor (D-CD4) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) - A - comment: "12 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Rick Renzi (R-CD1) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Trent Franks (R-CD2) - C - comment: "8 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John Shadegg (R-CD3) - B - comment: "10 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - C - comment: "7 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John McCain, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential nominee - D - comment: "3 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator - C - comment: "5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
The average grade for the Democratic members of AZ's delegation? 4.25 (A = 4 points, B = 3, etc., with "+" = an additional .5)
The average grade for the Republican members of AZ's delegation? 2.33; without the soon-to-be gone Renzi inflating their grade? 2, barely a C.
OK, so it's not much of a surprise that AZ's Republicans did so poorly on veterans' issues when compared to AZ's Democrats - it's long been common knowledge that Republican 'support our veterans' rhetoric is just that, *rhetoric.*
Not substance.
However, who would have guessed that the biggest drag on the Reps' grade would be John McCain, the former naval aviator who touts his status as a former POW at every turn?
It seems that Rudy Giuliani's "noun, verb, 9-11" meaningless spiel has been replaced by John McCain's "noun, verb, "POW" standard stump speech as the biggest snow job in American politics.
The only veterans McCain is concerned about are himself and those that support him with money or Swift Boat-style ad appearances; the rest mean nothing to him.
Access the entire report card here.
Later!
The grades of AZ's Congressional delegation, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund -
Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Note: Mitchell has just been endorsed by the VFW Political Action Committee.
Gabrelle Giffords (D-CD8) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Ed Pastor (D-CD4) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) - A - comment: "12 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Rick Renzi (R-CD1) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"
Trent Franks (R-CD2) - C - comment: "8 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John Shadegg (R-CD3) - B - comment: "10 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - C - comment: "7 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
John McCain, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential nominee - D - comment: "3 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator - C - comment: "5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"
The average grade for the Democratic members of AZ's delegation? 4.25 (A = 4 points, B = 3, etc., with "+" = an additional .5)
The average grade for the Republican members of AZ's delegation? 2.33; without the soon-to-be gone Renzi inflating their grade? 2, barely a C.
OK, so it's not much of a surprise that AZ's Republicans did so poorly on veterans' issues when compared to AZ's Democrats - it's long been common knowledge that Republican 'support our veterans' rhetoric is just that, *rhetoric.*
Not substance.
However, who would have guessed that the biggest drag on the Reps' grade would be John McCain, the former naval aviator who touts his status as a former POW at every turn?
It seems that Rudy Giuliani's "noun, verb, 9-11" meaningless spiel has been replaced by John McCain's "noun, verb, "POW" standard stump speech as the biggest snow job in American politics.
The only veterans McCain is concerned about are himself and those that support him with money or Swift Boat-style ad appearances; the rest mean nothing to him.
Access the entire report card here.
Later!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
"That one."????
First, the evaluation of Tuesday's debate - Obama won the debate because he didn't lose it. He came across as intelligent and presidential. McCain didn't do badly at all, but as my sister Patti observed, "there was no game changer."
His campaign has been stumbling since the economy imploded and the "Town Hall" format of Tuesday's debate (supposed to be a McCain strength) gave him the best opportunity to turn around or at least slow the decline of his campaign. While he did reasonably well with some of his foreign policy answers, he didn't do well at all with his answers on the economy and other domestic issues.
In short, the end result of the debate looks to be status quo (pending the results of the inevitable polls certain to be all the rage on the cable news channels on Wednesday).
A transcript of the debate from CNN here.
Where McCain bombed completely was his demeanor toward Obama (again!!).
From the transcript (emphasis mine) -
Whether it's his refusal during the first debate to acknowledge or even look at Obama or the using the disdainful "that one" to refer to Senator Obama during the second debate, McCain's open contempt for his opponent is becoming as much of a story as the rest of the debate.
I don't know if the whole "don't acknowledge Obama" schtick is something from McCain directly or he's just following some consultant's advice. Either way, though, he needs to show a little respect for Obama.
Candidates facing off for the same office don't have to like each other (and it's pretty clear that these two don't like each other), but they have to show each other a little courtesy and respect.
Let's be clear - it's ok to criticize your opponent's words, positions, and votes. "This is why my opponent is worse than me" is the flip side of the same campaign coin that "This is why I I'm the best candidate." It's a legitimate part of campaigning.
However, people in this country are sick and tired of the politics of derision, and right now, John McCain is a leading practitioner of it.
BTW - In the quoted section of the debate, John McCain talked about a bill that was supposedly sponsored Bush and Cheney.
Ummm....they may have *pushed* such a bill, but they couldn't have *sponsored* one under Congressional rules. Only a member of the House or Senate can do so. (Yes, I'm a geek. :)) )
Later!
His campaign has been stumbling since the economy imploded and the "Town Hall" format of Tuesday's debate (supposed to be a McCain strength) gave him the best opportunity to turn around or at least slow the decline of his campaign. While he did reasonably well with some of his foreign policy answers, he didn't do well at all with his answers on the economy and other domestic issues.
In short, the end result of the debate looks to be status quo (pending the results of the inevitable polls certain to be all the rage on the cable news channels on Wednesday).
A transcript of the debate from CNN here.
Where McCain bombed completely was his demeanor toward Obama (again!!).
From the transcript (emphasis mine) -
"By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.
You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. "
Whether it's his refusal during the first debate to acknowledge or even look at Obama or the using the disdainful "that one" to refer to Senator Obama during the second debate, McCain's open contempt for his opponent is becoming as much of a story as the rest of the debate.
I don't know if the whole "don't acknowledge Obama" schtick is something from McCain directly or he's just following some consultant's advice. Either way, though, he needs to show a little respect for Obama.
Candidates facing off for the same office don't have to like each other (and it's pretty clear that these two don't like each other), but they have to show each other a little courtesy and respect.
Let's be clear - it's ok to criticize your opponent's words, positions, and votes. "This is why my opponent is worse than me" is the flip side of the same campaign coin that "This is why I I'm the best candidate." It's a legitimate part of campaigning.
However, people in this country are sick and tired of the politics of derision, and right now, John McCain is a leading practitioner of it.
BTW - In the quoted section of the debate, John McCain talked about a bill that was supposedly sponsored Bush and Cheney.
Ummm....they may have *pushed* such a bill, but they couldn't have *sponsored* one under Congressional rules. Only a member of the House or Senate can do so. (Yes, I'm a geek. :)) )
Later!
The LD18 Republicans are starting to get scared
On Tuesday, the chair of the LD18 Republicans, Matt Tolman, took a swipe at Democratic candidates Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio. He claimed that the likes of Republicans Russell Pearce, Cecil Ash, and Steve Court are the "fiscally responsible" candidates in the race.
Apparently, Tolman thinks that things like Pearce's attempt to destroy public school funding (and with it, finish off the already ailing public education system in AZ) is "fiscally responsible."
The entire text is available at Mesa Issues.
Judah Nativio's campaign has released the following response -
I'm sure the press releases and campaign tactics will get nastier as more and more East Valley Republicans realize that they're going to lose their stranglehold on EV elected offices, whether in the state legislature or on the county board of supervisors (and the attacks on County Supervisor candidate Ed Hermes are already pretty rancid).
Stay tuned.
Apparently, Tolman thinks that things like Pearce's attempt to destroy public school funding (and with it, finish off the already ailing public education system in AZ) is "fiscally responsible."
The entire text is available at Mesa Issues.
Judah Nativio's campaign has released the following response -
"There he goes again," Judah said, "Matt Tollman is out telling more half truths and protecting his friend, Russell Pearce, who is chairman of the approproations committee and is one we can point fingers at for allowing this budget crisis to spiral out of control,"
Judah continues, "They did it to his primary opponent and now to his general opponent, they must be scared that their bad fiscal policy has finally caught up with them. Character bashing instead of solution providing, politics as usual.
Matt's remark's did not mention that I am in favor of lowering the sales tax and the corporate tax. The TIME initiative or Mr. Pearce's 1/2 cent increase would have provided much needed infrastructure, jobs and would have helped attract more business to Arizona. It is time we wake up and realize what direction we want to head in and stop voting purely on party affiliation. Do not fall for their tactics."
I'm sure the press releases and campaign tactics will get nastier as more and more East Valley Republicans realize that they're going to lose their stranglehold on EV elected offices, whether in the state legislature or on the county board of supervisors (and the attacks on County Supervisor candidate Ed Hermes are already pretty rancid).
Stay tuned.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Hermes responds to a desperate Fulton's anonymous attacks
Over the past few weeks, a number of Republican blogs in AZ have anonymously posted some allegations about Democrat Ed Hermes. He is challenging entrenched incumbent Fulton Brock for the District 1 seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Some of the allegations have not-so-anonymously made it into some of Fulton's mailers.
Each of the litany of allegations - he lives with his parents, he has received speeding tickets, he has ignored court appearances for the citations, he's appeared on MTV, he supports the DREAM Act, etc. - falls into one of three categories:
1. Untrue. Ed doesn't live with his parents. The truth is that particular allegation is designed to highlight Ed's relative youth. What Brock's disparagement of Hermes' age ignores is his experience as a member of the Board of Regents, as Director of External Affairs for the Arizona Department of Agriculture, and as a member of Governor Napolitano's Smart Growth Cabinet.
2. Twisted. Yes, he did receive a couple of speeding tickets, but they were photo radar tickets that were sent to an incorrect address. All of Hermes' tickets have been paid or dismissed, and he is in good standing with the court.
3. True but irrelevant. Yup, Ed supported the DREAM Act. So? What does the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have to do with that? Nothing, unless you are a scared incumbent Republican who has decided to campaign on base bigotry.
As for the MTV appearance, yes, he appeared on an episode of "Room Raiders," but Fulton has ignored the fact that instead of engaging in the wretched excesses that MTV's reality shows are known for (and that Brock presumably hopes that voters remember), Hermes was ridiculed on the show for studying.
Wow! A college student studying! What'll they accuse Hermes of next? Attending some classes? What a rebel!
In a press release, Hermes' campaign manager Devin Mauney said, "Fulton Brock continues to try to tear down his opponent's character with misleading attacks and faulty sources rather than focusing on the issues facing the county."
"Continue" is the key work there, because smear and fear isn't a new tactic for Brock. He had to settle a defamation lawsuit (CV1996-092729) brought by his 1996 opponent, Bob Edens.
Of course, this could just be a case of Fulton Brock following John McCain's lead - when you are losing on the issues (McCain is getting beat on the economy, Brock on job performance), attack your opponent with innuendo and insinuation and hope the voters ignore the utter lack of substance in your attacks and your campaign platform.
Brock's open contempt for honesty, truth, and even common courtesy only add to the reasons that a change is needed in the District 1 seat of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Vote for Ed Hermes on November 4.
Some of the allegations have not-so-anonymously made it into some of Fulton's mailers.
Each of the litany of allegations - he lives with his parents, he has received speeding tickets, he has ignored court appearances for the citations, he's appeared on MTV, he supports the DREAM Act, etc. - falls into one of three categories:
1. Untrue. Ed doesn't live with his parents. The truth is that particular allegation is designed to highlight Ed's relative youth. What Brock's disparagement of Hermes' age ignores is his experience as a member of the Board of Regents, as Director of External Affairs for the Arizona Department of Agriculture, and as a member of Governor Napolitano's Smart Growth Cabinet.
2. Twisted. Yes, he did receive a couple of speeding tickets, but they were photo radar tickets that were sent to an incorrect address. All of Hermes' tickets have been paid or dismissed, and he is in good standing with the court.
3. True but irrelevant. Yup, Ed supported the DREAM Act. So? What does the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have to do with that? Nothing, unless you are a scared incumbent Republican who has decided to campaign on base bigotry.
As for the MTV appearance, yes, he appeared on an episode of "Room Raiders," but Fulton has ignored the fact that instead of engaging in the wretched excesses that MTV's reality shows are known for (and that Brock presumably hopes that voters remember), Hermes was ridiculed on the show for studying.
Wow! A college student studying! What'll they accuse Hermes of next? Attending some classes? What a rebel!
In a press release, Hermes' campaign manager Devin Mauney said, "Fulton Brock continues to try to tear down his opponent's character with misleading attacks and faulty sources rather than focusing on the issues facing the county."
"Continue" is the key work there, because smear and fear isn't a new tactic for Brock. He had to settle a defamation lawsuit (CV1996-092729) brought by his 1996 opponent, Bob Edens.
Of course, this could just be a case of Fulton Brock following John McCain's lead - when you are losing on the issues (McCain is getting beat on the economy, Brock on job performance), attack your opponent with innuendo and insinuation and hope the voters ignore the utter lack of substance in your attacks and your campaign platform.
Brock's open contempt for honesty, truth, and even common courtesy only add to the reasons that a change is needed in the District 1 seat of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Vote for Ed Hermes on November 4.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Mail Call - Early Ballot Time
The early ballot for November's election arrived in Saturday's mail.
Most readers of the blog are already aware of how I feel about most of the races. If not, just check out the 'Candidates for 2008' section in the right column.
Congressman Harry Mitchell, State Senator Meg Burton Cahill, and State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser all deserve reelection, and candidates Tim Nelson (Maricopa County Attorney), Dan Saban (County Sheriff), Ed Hermes (County Supervisor, SD1), and Sandra Kennedy, Sam George, and Paul Newman (Arizona Corporation Commission) each merit support in their quests.
There are a few races that I haven't addressed earlier, mostly because no Democrat is running for the office. All of those races are for Maricopa County offices.
In those races - County Assessor, County Recorder, and County School Superintendent - I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidates. Not because I think that they have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of winning, or are even particularly well-qualified for the jobs (most of them *aren't* qualified), but because a strong showing by the Libertarians this year could encourage qualified Democrats to pursue the offices in four years.
Note: Some of these folks are so unqualified that if they had a chance of winning, I'd vote for a Republican first. However, that's not an issue this year.
I don't think that it's any coincidence that a longtime Tempe (and Arizona!) icon, Democrat Harry Mitchell, ran against entrenched (and embarrassing!) Republican Congressman JD Hayworth in 2006 *after* the 2004 showing of virtual unknown Elizabeth Rogers.
She garnered 38% of the CD5 vote on a $5000 budget, presaging Mitchell's upset of Hayworth two years later. A similar performance (>25%) by the Libertarian candidates will illustrate the changing electoral demographics in Maricopa County and possibly enourage other, more serious, candidates to throw their hats in the ring next time around.
As such, I will be voting for Rachel Kielsky for County Assessor, Ernest Hancock for County Recorder, and David Hodges for County School Superintendent. In the race for County Treasurer, I won't be casting a vote as no one, not even a Libertarian, is running against the embattled Charles Hoskins. Potential Democratic candidates will have to be encouraged by the undervotes in the race.
- For the non-partisan Maricopa County Special Health Care District District 1, I'll be voting for incumbent William 'Bil' Bruno. He's a loyal Republican, but so is his opponent, Rex Altree. Altree's qualifications see to be that he is a lobbyist (AZ Auto Glass Association) and that the Maricopa County GOP thinks that he is more conservative than Bruno.
A vote for Bruno is a vote for the "least bad" candidate, but that will have to do here.
- For the non-partisan Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 race, there are four candidates for three seats. Incumbents Jennifer Petersen and Eric Meyer (also a candidate for an LD11 House seat) are running for reelection; ballot newcomers Bonnie Sneed and Paige Frenkel fill out the list of candidates (That isn't meant to imply that they are newcomers to SUSD. Both have been very much involved in the community and in the school district.)
As I am totally unfamiliar with SUSD and its schools, I have no recommendations here.
- In the City of Scottsdale run-off election, incumbent Mary Manross and challenger Jim Lane are facing off for mayor, and Lisa Borowsky, Betty Drake, Tom Giller, Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Nan Nesvig are squaring off for three seats. Drake and McCullagh are incumbents.
As with the election in September, while I will be voting, I'm not satisfied enough with any of the candidates to actually endorse them. These are 'pick your poison' races.
- On the judge retention section of the ballot...no comment. I have no direct knowledge of any of the judges, which is a good thing because it means that I've successfully avoided court. However, that leaves me singularly unqualified to weigh in on this part of the ballot other than to say that this is a really lousy way to hold judges responsible to the voters of the county and state.
And before some wiseass brings it up, this method ("retain - yes or no") is still better than direct election. That would lead to judicial decisions based less on legal merit and more on political calculation.
The Judicial Performance Review is available from the AZ Secretary of State's office here.
- As for the propositions, I'll be voting...
Prop 100 - No. Banning a real estate transfer/sales tax. I don't like the idea of raising taxes, but part of the state's budget crisis is rooted in Republican efforts to strangle public services by cutting off revenue. Plus, I don't like the fact that the proposal is retroactive to December 31, 2007.
Prop 101 - No. Called a 'medical choice' act. It would have the effect of shutting down AHCCCS and other public health plans. It would require Arizonans to send their health care dollars to private (and frequently, out-of-state) health insurance companies, instead of spending their money where it is needed, on the care of their families and themselves.
Prop 102 - No. The anti-same sex marriage amendment to the AZ Constitution. This exercise in right-wing bullying was beaten back two years ago, and deserves to be soundly trounced this time.
Prop 105 - No. Called "Majority Rules", it would require that ballot measures that impose any taxes or fees to gain the votes of a majority of registered voters, not just a majority of votes cast. In short, not casting a vote for a proposition would be the equivalent of voting no. This one may be worse than Prop 102 as it seeks to disenfranchise all voters, not just one particular demographic group. The measure is funded by folks who oppose ballot initiatives that mandate things like children's health care and Clean Elections. It's irresponsible governing, and should be defeated.
Prop 200 - No. Billed as a "Payday Loan Reform" measure when in fact it is funded by the payday loan industry. Instead of reforming the business, it would permanently authorize its existence (set to expire in 2010) and institutionalize some of the nastier aspects of the operations (i.e - 391% APR).
Prop 201 - Yes. Homeowners' Bill of Rights. Would give homeowners prospective buyers the right to sue under certain circumstances, as well as other rights mostly related to warranties. Given the Phoenix-area trend of shoddy workmanship performed by fly-by-night or out of state developers, this is direly needed.
Prop 202 - a hesitant Yes. Called the "Stop Illegal Hiring" initiative, it makes changes to Arizona's employer sanctions law. While that is a good thing, this initiative focuses only on helping businesses, not individuals. Not surprisingly, it is supported most strongly by the AZ Growers Association and other groups that profit from cheap immigrant labor. Also not surprisingly, it is opposed by Russell Pearce and the rest of the state's nativists.
Can we vote in a way such that both sides lose?? :)
To be workable and truly effective, any measures that really address immigration and border issues should be written by real people, not hate-focused nativists or money-focused profiteers.
Prop 300 - Yes. This measure would raise legislative salaries from $24,000 per year to $30,000. It's long overdue - it's been a decade since the last legislative raise. The rationale for the low legislative pay has always been "it's a part time job." I don't know how part time - it's a 60 - 70 hour per week job during the typical six month session, and maybe 25 - 30 hours per week during the off season, with even that cycling up in November and December as the next session of the lege looms on the horizon. Over a full year, it works out to being a full-time, 40-hour per week job, and $30K isn't too much to pay.
Later!
Most readers of the blog are already aware of how I feel about most of the races. If not, just check out the 'Candidates for 2008' section in the right column.
Congressman Harry Mitchell, State Senator Meg Burton Cahill, and State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser all deserve reelection, and candidates Tim Nelson (Maricopa County Attorney), Dan Saban (County Sheriff), Ed Hermes (County Supervisor, SD1), and Sandra Kennedy, Sam George, and Paul Newman (Arizona Corporation Commission) each merit support in their quests.
There are a few races that I haven't addressed earlier, mostly because no Democrat is running for the office. All of those races are for Maricopa County offices.
In those races - County Assessor, County Recorder, and County School Superintendent - I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidates. Not because I think that they have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of winning, or are even particularly well-qualified for the jobs (most of them *aren't* qualified), but because a strong showing by the Libertarians this year could encourage qualified Democrats to pursue the offices in four years.
Note: Some of these folks are so unqualified that if they had a chance of winning, I'd vote for a Republican first. However, that's not an issue this year.
I don't think that it's any coincidence that a longtime Tempe (and Arizona!) icon, Democrat Harry Mitchell, ran against entrenched (and embarrassing!) Republican Congressman JD Hayworth in 2006 *after* the 2004 showing of virtual unknown Elizabeth Rogers.
She garnered 38% of the CD5 vote on a $5000 budget, presaging Mitchell's upset of Hayworth two years later. A similar performance (>25%) by the Libertarian candidates will illustrate the changing electoral demographics in Maricopa County and possibly enourage other, more serious, candidates to throw their hats in the ring next time around.
As such, I will be voting for Rachel Kielsky for County Assessor, Ernest Hancock for County Recorder, and David Hodges for County School Superintendent. In the race for County Treasurer, I won't be casting a vote as no one, not even a Libertarian, is running against the embattled Charles Hoskins. Potential Democratic candidates will have to be encouraged by the undervotes in the race.
- For the non-partisan Maricopa County Special Health Care District District 1, I'll be voting for incumbent William 'Bil' Bruno. He's a loyal Republican, but so is his opponent, Rex Altree. Altree's qualifications see to be that he is a lobbyist (AZ Auto Glass Association) and that the Maricopa County GOP thinks that he is more conservative than Bruno.
A vote for Bruno is a vote for the "least bad" candidate, but that will have to do here.
- For the non-partisan Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 race, there are four candidates for three seats. Incumbents Jennifer Petersen and Eric Meyer (also a candidate for an LD11 House seat) are running for reelection; ballot newcomers Bonnie Sneed and Paige Frenkel fill out the list of candidates (That isn't meant to imply that they are newcomers to SUSD. Both have been very much involved in the community and in the school district.)
As I am totally unfamiliar with SUSD and its schools, I have no recommendations here.
- In the City of Scottsdale run-off election, incumbent Mary Manross and challenger Jim Lane are facing off for mayor, and Lisa Borowsky, Betty Drake, Tom Giller, Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Nan Nesvig are squaring off for three seats. Drake and McCullagh are incumbents.
As with the election in September, while I will be voting, I'm not satisfied enough with any of the candidates to actually endorse them. These are 'pick your poison' races.
- On the judge retention section of the ballot...no comment. I have no direct knowledge of any of the judges, which is a good thing because it means that I've successfully avoided court. However, that leaves me singularly unqualified to weigh in on this part of the ballot other than to say that this is a really lousy way to hold judges responsible to the voters of the county and state.
And before some wiseass brings it up, this method ("retain - yes or no") is still better than direct election. That would lead to judicial decisions based less on legal merit and more on political calculation.
The Judicial Performance Review is available from the AZ Secretary of State's office here.
- As for the propositions, I'll be voting...
Prop 100 - No. Banning a real estate transfer/sales tax. I don't like the idea of raising taxes, but part of the state's budget crisis is rooted in Republican efforts to strangle public services by cutting off revenue. Plus, I don't like the fact that the proposal is retroactive to December 31, 2007.
Prop 101 - No. Called a 'medical choice' act. It would have the effect of shutting down AHCCCS and other public health plans. It would require Arizonans to send their health care dollars to private (and frequently, out-of-state) health insurance companies, instead of spending their money where it is needed, on the care of their families and themselves.
Prop 102 - No. The anti-same sex marriage amendment to the AZ Constitution. This exercise in right-wing bullying was beaten back two years ago, and deserves to be soundly trounced this time.
Prop 105 - No. Called "Majority Rules", it would require that ballot measures that impose any taxes or fees to gain the votes of a majority of registered voters, not just a majority of votes cast. In short, not casting a vote for a proposition would be the equivalent of voting no. This one may be worse than Prop 102 as it seeks to disenfranchise all voters, not just one particular demographic group. The measure is funded by folks who oppose ballot initiatives that mandate things like children's health care and Clean Elections. It's irresponsible governing, and should be defeated.
Prop 200 - No. Billed as a "Payday Loan Reform" measure when in fact it is funded by the payday loan industry. Instead of reforming the business, it would permanently authorize its existence (set to expire in 2010) and institutionalize some of the nastier aspects of the operations (i.e - 391% APR).
Prop 201 - Yes. Homeowners' Bill of Rights. Would give homeowners prospective buyers the right to sue under certain circumstances, as well as other rights mostly related to warranties. Given the Phoenix-area trend of shoddy workmanship performed by fly-by-night or out of state developers, this is direly needed.
Prop 202 - a hesitant Yes. Called the "Stop Illegal Hiring" initiative, it makes changes to Arizona's employer sanctions law. While that is a good thing, this initiative focuses only on helping businesses, not individuals. Not surprisingly, it is supported most strongly by the AZ Growers Association and other groups that profit from cheap immigrant labor. Also not surprisingly, it is opposed by Russell Pearce and the rest of the state's nativists.
Can we vote in a way such that both sides lose?? :)
To be workable and truly effective, any measures that really address immigration and border issues should be written by real people, not hate-focused nativists or money-focused profiteers.
Prop 300 - Yes. This measure would raise legislative salaries from $24,000 per year to $30,000. It's long overdue - it's been a decade since the last legislative raise. The rationale for the low legislative pay has always been "it's a part time job." I don't know how part time - it's a 60 - 70 hour per week job during the typical six month session, and maybe 25 - 30 hours per week during the off season, with even that cycling up in November and December as the next session of the lege looms on the horizon. Over a full year, it works out to being a full-time, 40-hour per week job, and $30K isn't too much to pay.
Later!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!
The last question from Thursday's debate (transcript courtesy CNN) -
Let's see...
...She talks about "working together" but she's never had to "compromise."
...She talks about she's "quasi-caved in" but how it was the legislature's fault, not hers.
...She talks on Thursday about "bringing both sides together" while on Saturday she accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." (AP via the AZ Republic)
Can you say "Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!"??
Most of her answers on Thursday were crap (being a Republican will do that :) ), she did OK in "didn't step on her tongue" sort of way.
However, that last answer is reason #1 why Sarah Palin is the scariest major party candidate for a national office...EVER. Like George W. Bush before her, she is pathologically incapable of ever admitting to making a mistake but masks that fact with a sort of smarmy folksiness that even Bush at his worst couldn't achieve.
I know the old truism, that no one votes for the Vice President, but undecided voters need to stop and consider whether Palin is tempermentally and intellectually suited to live life 'one heartbeat away' from the highest office in the land.
IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue -- and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year -- can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?
BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
And so that -- that -- that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.
But I did change on that, and -- and I'm glad I did.
IFILL: Governor?
PALIN: There have been times where, as mayor and governor, we have passed budgets that I did not veto and that I think could be considered as something that I quasi-caved in, if you will, but knowing that it was the right thing to do in order to progress the agenda for that year and to work with the legislative body, that body that actually holds the purse strings.
So there were times when I wanted to zero-base budget, and to cut taxes even more, and I didn't have enough support in order to accomplish that.
But on the major principle things, no, there hasn't been something that I've had to compromise on, because we've always seemed to find a way to work together. Up there in Alaska, what we have done is, with bipartisan efforts, is work together and, again, not caring who gets the credit for what, as we accomplish things up there.
And that's been just a part of the operation that I wanted to participate in. And that's what we're going to do in Washington, D.C., also, bringing both sides together. John McCain is known for doing that, also, in order to get the work done for the American people.
Let's see...
...She talks about "working together" but she's never had to "compromise."
...She talks about she's "quasi-caved in" but how it was the legislature's fault, not hers.
...She talks on Thursday about "bringing both sides together" while on Saturday she accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." (AP via the AZ Republic)
Can you say "Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!"??
Most of her answers on Thursday were crap (being a Republican will do that :) ), she did OK in "didn't step on her tongue" sort of way.
However, that last answer is reason #1 why Sarah Palin is the scariest major party candidate for a national office...EVER. Like George W. Bush before her, she is pathologically incapable of ever admitting to making a mistake but masks that fact with a sort of smarmy folksiness that even Bush at his worst couldn't achieve.
I know the old truism, that no one votes for the Vice President, but undecided voters need to stop and consider whether Palin is tempermentally and intellectually suited to live life 'one heartbeat away' from the highest office in the land.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Endorsements and canvasses
Ahhh....Autumn in an even-numbered year...
...Leaves turning, filling our vision with a palette of colors (OK, in non-AZ parts of the country :) )...
...The Cardinals finding ever-more painful ways to lose football games, filling our living rooms and sports bars with cries of anguish and derision...
...People walking and knocking, filling our hearing with words of this candidate or that ballot question...
...Newspapers and mailers covering our fingers with ink. crowing about endorsements...
Either temps are dropping, or early ballots are hitting mailboxes this week.
Whatever the cause, the lists of both endorsements and scheduled canvasses this week are getting longer by the minute.
The AZ Republic released its endorsements in LDs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (aka - the East Valley). That list looks less like they seriously considered the merits of each candidate and more like they wanted only to hedge their bets.
In all of the districts except for LD19, they split their support, selecting one member of one party and two of the other party.
Now, personally, I think that if the Rep actually cared about the interests of the districts and the state, they should have endorsed all Democrats...but I'm a self-admitted partisan hack. :)
In other words, I may not agree with all of their endorsements, but they have the right to endorse any candidate they choose, and for any reason.
However, partisan hack or not, I have to take exception to two of their snubs - Tammie Pursley in LD18 and Ed Ableser in LD17.
Apparently, they preferred Cecil Ash over Pursley because of his moderate (by LD18 standards, anyway), pro-business position on illegal immigration. Apparently, they ignored the fact that is the only issue on which Ash is remotely 'moderate.' He is active with United Families International, a far-right AZ-based organization that works to "support traditional families" by things like opposing radical UN initiatives such as the UN Conventions on Women's Rights and Children's Rights (the conventions oppose hallmarks of the traditional family structure like forced marriage of children and gender-selective infanticide.)
Tammie Pursley may be focused on education, but she has the intelligence and the work ethic to learn, contribute and lead on other issues as AZ moves into into the 21st century.
Ash will just serve as a chain dragging Arizona back to the 19th century.
As for Ed Ableser, the Rep's editors criticized him for being too partisan in supporting efforts to assist Corona del Sol High School with its air quality issues.
Huh??
In a session that saw some of the most underhanded tactics from the Republican caucus in the lege *against* ideas and people they don't like, (such as Sen. Jack Harper's work to kill a texting-while-driving ban and to railroad the anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment on to November's ballot) they're criticizing a Democrat for fighting *for* his constituents?
Bit of a credibility gap there.
In other endorsement news,
...Congressman Harry Mitchell has endorsed Bob Lord, the candidate whose challenge in CD3 has incumbent Republican John Shadegg running scared (witness his vote in favor of the bailout bill)
...The AZ Rep has endorsed Democrat Tim Nelson for Maricopa County Attorney. Supporters of Andrew Thomas will undoubtedly point out the fact that Thomas didn't seek the Rep's endorsement. They will also undoubtedly ignore the fact that even Thomas knew better than to even bother after his abortive attempt to intimidate critics in the press into silence. The editors of the Rep don't seem to have forgotten the harassment, investigation and arrests of journalists from the Phoenix New Times.
...The endorsements issued by the Maricopa County GOP in the nonpartisan race for the Maricopa Integrated Health System board seems to have upset some of the snubbed candidates, most of whom are long-time Republicans. It seems that most of them didn't even *know* that endorsements were even being considered.
Should make for a fun time at the MCGOP's next organizing meeting after the election (probably sometime in January.)
As for canvasses this weekend...
...Governor Janet Napolitano will be in the East Valley on Saturday, walking and knocking with dozens (hundreds?? hint, hint :)) ) of enthusiastic volunteers.
First, at 8:30 a.m. join the Governor and State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill, State Representative Ed Ableser, and State Representative David Schapira at the Tempe coordinated campaign headquarters at 123 E. Baseline in Tempe. The office phone number is 480-820-2298.
After that at 9:30 a.m., the Governor will be making a stop in LD21 in Chandler to help Phil Hettmansperger. Meet up at Pima Park, 625 N. McQueen Dr. Chandler (East side of McQueen Rd, between Ray Rd. and Chandler Blvd.) Contact Darcy at the Tempe office at 480-820-2298.
...Ed Hermes, candidate for County Supervisor in District 1, will be holding a canvass in LD20 with Tim Nelson, Ted Maish (candidate for State Senate), and Rae Waters (State House) on Sunday, October 5. The walk is scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. Contact the campaign at ed[at]edhermes.com or 480-234-1753.
...In LD18, Judah Nativio and Tammie Pursley will be busy this weekend. Contact them at http://www.electnativio.com/homepage.php or http://www.pursleyforchange.com/08/.
...In LD8 and LD7, contact the Scottsdale coordinated campaign office located at 7950 E Acoma Dr. at 480-607-4435. Candidates Stephanie Rimmer (LD8), Jeanne Lunn (LD7), Joel Sinclaire (County Supervisor SD2) and Marilyn Fox (SD3) as well as Congressman Harry Mitchell all need your help.
Later!
...Leaves turning, filling our vision with a palette of colors (OK, in non-AZ parts of the country :) )...
...The Cardinals finding ever-more painful ways to lose football games, filling our living rooms and sports bars with cries of anguish and derision...
...People walking and knocking, filling our hearing with words of this candidate or that ballot question...
...Newspapers and mailers covering our fingers with ink. crowing about endorsements...
Either temps are dropping, or early ballots are hitting mailboxes this week.
Whatever the cause, the lists of both endorsements and scheduled canvasses this week are getting longer by the minute.
The AZ Republic released its endorsements in LDs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (aka - the East Valley). That list looks less like they seriously considered the merits of each candidate and more like they wanted only to hedge their bets.
In all of the districts except for LD19, they split their support, selecting one member of one party and two of the other party.
Now, personally, I think that if the Rep actually cared about the interests of the districts and the state, they should have endorsed all Democrats...but I'm a self-admitted partisan hack. :)
In other words, I may not agree with all of their endorsements, but they have the right to endorse any candidate they choose, and for any reason.
However, partisan hack or not, I have to take exception to two of their snubs - Tammie Pursley in LD18 and Ed Ableser in LD17.
Apparently, they preferred Cecil Ash over Pursley because of his moderate (by LD18 standards, anyway), pro-business position on illegal immigration. Apparently, they ignored the fact that is the only issue on which Ash is remotely 'moderate.' He is active with United Families International, a far-right AZ-based organization that works to "support traditional families" by things like opposing radical UN initiatives such as the UN Conventions on Women's Rights and Children's Rights (the conventions oppose hallmarks of the traditional family structure like forced marriage of children and gender-selective infanticide.)
Tammie Pursley may be focused on education, but she has the intelligence and the work ethic to learn, contribute and lead on other issues as AZ moves into into the 21st century.
Ash will just serve as a chain dragging Arizona back to the 19th century.
As for Ed Ableser, the Rep's editors criticized him for being too partisan in supporting efforts to assist Corona del Sol High School with its air quality issues.
Huh??
In a session that saw some of the most underhanded tactics from the Republican caucus in the lege *against* ideas and people they don't like, (such as Sen. Jack Harper's work to kill a texting-while-driving ban and to railroad the anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment on to November's ballot) they're criticizing a Democrat for fighting *for* his constituents?
Bit of a credibility gap there.
In other endorsement news,
...Congressman Harry Mitchell has endorsed Bob Lord, the candidate whose challenge in CD3 has incumbent Republican John Shadegg running scared (witness his vote in favor of the bailout bill)
...The AZ Rep has endorsed Democrat Tim Nelson for Maricopa County Attorney. Supporters of Andrew Thomas will undoubtedly point out the fact that Thomas didn't seek the Rep's endorsement. They will also undoubtedly ignore the fact that even Thomas knew better than to even bother after his abortive attempt to intimidate critics in the press into silence. The editors of the Rep don't seem to have forgotten the harassment, investigation and arrests of journalists from the Phoenix New Times.
...The endorsements issued by the Maricopa County GOP in the nonpartisan race for the Maricopa Integrated Health System board seems to have upset some of the snubbed candidates, most of whom are long-time Republicans. It seems that most of them didn't even *know* that endorsements were even being considered.
Should make for a fun time at the MCGOP's next organizing meeting after the election (probably sometime in January.)
As for canvasses this weekend...
...Governor Janet Napolitano will be in the East Valley on Saturday, walking and knocking with dozens (hundreds?? hint, hint :)) ) of enthusiastic volunteers.
First, at 8:30 a.m. join the Governor and State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill, State Representative Ed Ableser, and State Representative David Schapira at the Tempe coordinated campaign headquarters at 123 E. Baseline in Tempe. The office phone number is 480-820-2298.
After that at 9:30 a.m., the Governor will be making a stop in LD21 in Chandler to help Phil Hettmansperger. Meet up at Pima Park, 625 N. McQueen Dr. Chandler (East side of McQueen Rd, between Ray Rd. and Chandler Blvd.) Contact Darcy at the Tempe office at 480-820-2298.
...Ed Hermes, candidate for County Supervisor in District 1, will be holding a canvass in LD20 with Tim Nelson, Ted Maish (candidate for State Senate), and Rae Waters (State House) on Sunday, October 5. The walk is scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. Contact the campaign at ed[at]edhermes.com or 480-234-1753.
...In LD18, Judah Nativio and Tammie Pursley will be busy this weekend. Contact them at http://www.electnativio.com/homepage.php or http://www.pursleyforchange.com/08/.
...In LD8 and LD7, contact the Scottsdale coordinated campaign office located at 7950 E Acoma Dr. at 480-607-4435. Candidates Stephanie Rimmer (LD8), Jeanne Lunn (LD7), Joel Sinclaire (County Supervisor SD2) and Marilyn Fox (SD3) as well as Congressman Harry Mitchell all need your help.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)