New Favorite Website: Crazy Jack Harper

Thanks go out to the Arizona Capitol Times' Yellow Sheet Report for the heads up on this one -

Harper believes reporter, Bundgaard tied to website


By Yellow Sheet Report
Published: July 8, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Harper is pointing at a member of the Capitol press corps and a one-time political ally as the provocateurs behind the Crazy Jack Harper website that has regularly taken potshots at the senator since May.

To read more on this item plus all the stories in the July 8 Yellow Sheet Report, go to www.yellowsheetreport.com (Yellow Sheet Subscription Required).

I don't know who is behind the site (Crazy Jack Harper) so I can't say with certainty that Harper's assertion that Scott Bundgaard is correct or incorrect.

However, since Bundgaard is running for the LD4 Senate seat that Harper is vacating, it seems unlikely that he would waste money on a website ridiculing Harper, who is running for the House.  If a Republican candidate is behind the website, I would think it more likely that it is one of other R House candidates in LD4.

I am pretty sure that the Democrats aren't behind it, though.

When trying to get under the skin of Republicans, we usually wield the needle far more deftly.  This site has its good points, but it's as subtle as a baseball bat.

Still, given that LD4 has elected and reelected Harper so often that he is termed-out from the Senate, maybe subtlety isn't called for here.

Just sayin'...

Mitchell donates books to help a homeless shelter in Mesa

There are days when Congressman Harry Mitchell drives me nuts with some of his votes (FISA renewal from 2007 and 2008 still steams me) and positions (the feds shouldn't sue AZ over SB1070) but then there are the days when I am reminded that he is inarguably the best human being to represent Tempe and Scottsdale in Congress in, like, ever.

From ABC15.com -

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell donated 130 books he obtained from the Library of Congress to a homeless shelter in Mesa Wednesday.

A New Leaf's La Mesita Family Homeless Shelter, a non-profit organization, accepted the donation at the morning event.

"As a former teacher, I know how important it is to make sure our youth and families have the resources and supplies necessary for learning," said Mitchell. "A quality education is a priority in our local communities, and reading helps not only improve literacy, but also build fundamental skills for the future."

I'm sure that his would-be challengers in the Republican primary in CD5 will decry this as a sign that Mitchell is "too liberal."
 
I have to ask, however -
 
When did working to improve the lives of one's constituents become an ideological position, and when did being a decent human being become an unacceptable trait in elected officials?
 
Note: financial contributions to A New Leaf can be made here.
 

The Republican election checklist - LD8 version

Sat through the video archive of last week's Clean Elections debate for the Republican House candidates in LD8 (North Scottsdale).

Oh, the sacrifices I make so that others are spared the pain.

Either that, or I'm home sick today and have way too much time on my hands (daytime TV sucks - a few soaps, Springer-esque talk shows, and faux court shows mostly - ugh.)

Four of the six Republican candidates in LD8 were there.  Paula Pennypacker, Michelle Ugenti, and John Kavanagh are participating candidates (AKA - accepting funding from Clean Elections) and had to be there (participation is a condition of CE funding).  Michael Blaire is a traditionally-funded candidate and did not have to participate, but chose to do so.  Ray Mahoubi and Eric Ulis are also traditionally-funded, but chose not to participate.

Democrat John Kriekard is the only D on the ballot, so there won't be a primary debate for the Democrats.  He'll participate in the general election debate.

On to the debate.

OK, there wasn't much of one.  Their differences were more shades of gray than any real differences.

They were mostly following the Republican Election Checklist - 2010 Edition.

To whit -

Fiscal conservative - check, check, check, and check

The Feds are responsible for all that ails Arizona - check X 4

Support SB1070 - check X 4 (Kavanagh, a sponsor of the bill, was especially vociferous in his defense of the new law; Blaire urged people to vote out Congressman Raul Grijalva for calling for a boycott of AZ)

Health care reform: oppose "Obamacare" and favor the free market - check X 4

Education - Empower principals, hold school boards accountable for spending, and increase "school choice" - check X 4

Balancing public life with private life: Family/spouse supportive - check X 4


To be sure, there *were* some minor differences between the candidates -

When asked about the state budget, Pennypacker actually mentioned looking at revenue.  The rest were "cuts, cuts, and more cuts."  In fairness to Pennypacker, she wasn't exactly opposed to cuts, either.

In terms of their location on the political spectrum, again, there wasn't much difference - Kavanagh is a nativist in the Russell Pearce mode, Ugenti is a Tea Party type (she referred to herself as a "TeaPublican"), Blaire is a Chamber of Commerce winger with Tea Party ideations (when asked about the effects of devastating budget cuts, part of his response was "government isn't always the answer" and "people have to take personal responsibility") and Pennypacker, like Ugenti, is also a Tea Party type.  Perhaps a little less knee-jerk about her ideology, she is still an anti-government zealot campaigning for a government office.

I'm sure the four principals would argue that there are all sorts of nuanced differences between them, but they had one other major factor in common -

During the near hour and a half of the debate, not even one of them stated why he/she would be the best choice to represent LD8, or what they would do for the District.

Not one.

The bottom line is that none of the four present last week (and presumably the other two who weren't present) could be generic Republican candidates in any other district or any other state.  Other than the SB1070-specific comments, their positions could have been taken anywhere.

The entire archive of Clean Elections debates held thus far are here.

Breaking news: Federal Government Sues AZ Over SB1070

....OK, OK, that is hardly breaking news - everybody expected a lawsuit was coming as soon as Jan Brewer signed Russell Pearce's anti-immigrant measure into law in late April.

How about this for a title?

Breaking News - Republicans Freak Out Over Federal Lawsuit To Block SB1070

...OK, OK, that's hardly surprising either.  They freak out whenever somebody calls them out on their garbage.

Anyway, on to the main part of the post.

From the Arizona Republic -

The Obama administration filed suit today against Arizona's landmark immigration law, alleging it was unconstitutional and a U.S. District Court judge should keep it from going into effect July 29.

The suit, filed in Phoenix, claims Arizona's new law "will conflict and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives," and divert resources from the "dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

{snip}


Gov. Jan Brewer, who is named as a defendant along with the state, called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision.

"It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels," Brewer said in a written statement. "Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.

Other reactions:

Congressman Harry Mitchell, from a press release -

"I am extremely disappointed that the Obama Administration has decided to file a lawsuit against Arizona to try to overturn our state's new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. This is the wrong direction to go. I urged President Obama and his administration against doing so because I strongly believe their time, efforts and resources should be focused on securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system. Arizona needs Washington to take action, but a lawsuit is definitely not the kind of action we need.

Attorney General Terry Goddard, from a campaign press release -

"What we need are solutions, not lawsuits. Until we get real solutions, more states will turn to band-aid remedies to address this very important issue," said Attorney General Terry Goddard. "It is disappointing to see the federal government choosing to intervene in a state statute instead of working with Arizona to create sustainable solutions to the illegal immigration issue that our state and country so desperately need."

State Senator Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) calls the lawsuit an "insult" to Arizonans.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, from a McCain press release -

“The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.”

My take:

The law is bad, the lawsuit is necessary, and any sort of immigration policy that doesn't address the underlying cause of immigration from Mexico to the U.S, the economics, whether it's Russell Pearce's version of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" or some kind of "comprehensive reform" is doomed to fail.

And all of the blathering about "insults" and "attacks" and "secure the border first" won't change that.

BTW - The best quote about this wasn't actually said about this mess. 

In 2007, the late, great Molly Ivin wrote "Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don't like."

Look for Brewer, Pearce, and the other nativists suffer from fits of apoplexy if/when a federal judge blocks their police-state law.


The text of the legal filing can be found here, courtesy AZCentral.com

Civil Rights Forum tonight!

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona, headed by Dennis Burke, "will hold the first of a series of Civil Rights Forums focusing on federal civil rights laws such as official misconduct, new federal statutes on hate crimes and the investigation and prosecution of violations" tonight.

Time: 6 p.m. (doors open at 5:30 p.m.)

Place: South Mountain High School, 5401 S. 7th St., Phoenix

Flyer here.

Light posting will continue for the next couple of days

Due to time constraints - helping out a campaign, helping to set up a voter registration booth at the Tempe fireworks show on Sunday - posting has been sparse for the last five days, and will continue to be sparse for the next couple of days.

My apologies to visitors in need of a fix of perceptive sarcasm, but by Wednesday evening, posting should be back to normal.

Hang in there.  :)

Later!

Happy 234th America!

You don't look a day over 157...

Pic courtesy the Washington Post.

All Aboard The Nativist Railroad!!

Looks like the few Republican candidates who weren't already riding the anti-immigrant train are looking to follow the lead of Jan "all undocumented immigrants are drug mules" Brewer and are buying tickets.

The latest is Barry Wong, a candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. 

He has proposed requiring utilities to check the immigration status of customers before turning on power/water/etc., and denying the same to those who are unable to prove their presence in the country is legal.

It's somewhat surprising that Wong would come up with something as punitive as this.  Prior to this, he was considered intelligent, thoughtful, and hard-working.

From an AZ Republic editorial on Wong's proposal -

We don't think Wong thought this through. But in his willingness to jump on the bandwagon, he has joined the campaign to demonize illegal immigrants: If your electric bill is high, it's all their fault. It is disturbing that someone like Wong, who has had a reputation as reasoned and thoughtful, would end up playing into the current hysteria.

Even a partisan hack like me (writing two years ago during the last race for ACC) thought Wong was very conservative but that he "occasionally show[s] an understanding of issues that went beyond the usual Republican knee-jerk talking points."

Lobbyist Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, writing an open letter to Wong in the Arizona Capitol Times, took Wong to task for his proposal -

To say that I was shocked and dismayed to read in Wednesday’s Arizona Republic of your proposal to deny utility services to illegal immigrants would be an understatement. Your cynical attempt to ratchet up the rhetoric over immigration to score cheap political points in a bid for office marks a new low in our state’s immigration debate.

It's a rare day indeed when I agree with one of the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP (literally, in Hamer's case! :) ), but in this instance, he is spot on.

Later...

Pam Gorman: the latest R candidate to bring ridicule upon Arizona

Former state senator Pam Gorman is one of the gaggle* of Republicans candidates to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg in AZCD3.

*"gaggle" = 10 ballot-qualified candidates, including a couple that nobody but their mothers have heard of before

Apparently, she is worried about getting lost in the clutter of the CD3 campaign (early ballots come out in less than a month!).  So worried, in fact, that she has put up an ad that is sure to garner some attention for her candidacy.

And if "garnering attention" was her primary goal for the spot, it has been successful.

The pundits on MSNBC have been mocking it all day today.



Normally, I am loathe to publicize an R candidate's ads, *any* R candidate's, but in this case, I'll happily make an exception.

AZ Republic coverage here; Feathered Bastard coverage in the Phoenix New Times here; coverage from AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona here.

BTW - in other "Republicans inviting ridicule" news, the AZRep's Political Insider has the scoop on a new website that shines a light on some of the more perceptive utterances of one of Arizona's most erudite legislators, State Senator Sylvia Allen.

The site Earth to Sylvia Allen has debuted, reminding visitors of gems like

"The Earth's been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and it hasn't been done away with."

 

“Our little creeks and watersheds were full because the forest was not filled with all these trees… And so the trees are taking our water.” 6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt

“The wealthy have done a lot for us. But what are we doing for the wealthy? We need to be giving back, too.” 7/30/10 Senate Appropriations – Special Session

That last quote is from 2009, not 2010, but I actually saw her spout that one.

Luckily, I have a beard, otherwise, but jaw would have been severely scraped because it hit the floor so hard.  :)

The "Pot meet Kettle" moment of the Kagan confirmation hearings (so far):

Long-time Senator Jon Kyl, son of a congressman, a lawyer and former lobbyist, Republican Whip in the U.S. Senate, and rumored R candidate for VP in 2012, derided Kagan as too "establishment" to be a good Supreme Court Justice.

From Kyl's opening statement today, courtesy MainJustice.com -

Not only is Ms. Kagan’s background unusual for a Supreme Court nominee, it is not clear how it demonstrates that she has, in the President’s words, ‘a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.’ One recent article noted that ‘[Ms.] Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.’

If Kyl's political blood was any bluer, he'd be getting ready to star in the sequel to Avatar.  There is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent and hard-working Senator (though it would be nice if he used that intelligence and work ethic to benefit all Arizonans, not just his biggest campaign contributors, but I digress :) ), but he inherited a lot of his wealth and political contacts.  He's used that initial advantage to great effect, but he still had a big leg up on most of his peers.

On the other hand, Kagan, who is at least as intelligent and hard-working as Kyl, had to earn every single one of her achievements.  "Manhattan's upper West side" isn't exactly a hovel in Appalachia, but her path to an eminent career in public service wasn't as gilded as Kyl's.  One doesn't become the first female U.S. Solicitor General and the first female dean of the Harvard Law School by inheriting the jobs.  She earned them the old-fashioned way, with hard work and intellectual merit.  Her start was less "leg up" and more "leg work."

I truly expect Kagan to be confirmed, but also expect that the hearing, with both Kyl's derision and the other R's attacking Kagan because of her ties to judicial icon Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is serving as a preview of this fall's campaign rhetoric - class warfare and race-baiting.

Hope I'm wrong about that last.

More folks noticing Jan Brewer's penchant for fabrication

Now even Arizona's journalists, not exactly a breed known for challenging the power structure in Arizona, are calling out Jan Brewer on her rather casual relationship with the facts regarding undocumented immigrants and immigration in general.



Brewer likes to refer to herself as a "truthteller", but she has a very flexible definition of the word "truth."

Of course, that may be the recipe for winning an R primary this year.

Rep. John Kavanagh thinks that ethnic profiling is something to joke about

More than three years ago, I wrote about how LD8 State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) was little more than a polished version of Russell Pearce, only with a "New Yawk" accent.  During a 2007 community meeting, he dropped a gem of a bigoted stereotype -

After citing a (unverified) statistic that 1/5 of the residents of Arizona are illegal immigrants, he looked around the room and said "everybody in this room looks OK."

Apparently, he hasn't changed.

From the blog of journalist Terry Greene Sterling -

On June 25, in Phoenix, I was honored to participate in a panel sponsored by the Arizona Latino Media Association. The other panelists included Nancy-Jo Merritt, a longtime Phoenix immigration attorney; Antonio Bustamante, an activist and attorney who grew up on the border, and John Kavanaugh, the legislator who sponsored the House version of SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The panel was moderated by New Times journalist Monica Alonzo.

{snip}

At one point, Nancy-Jo Merritt noted that many of her undocumented clients are Canadians.
A spirited discussion ensued.
Rep. Kavanaugh announced that “illegals” who were Canadians could “stay” in Arizona because they have money and buy real estate.
Then he said, several times, that he was just kidding.

 Umm, yeah. 

To Rep. Kavanagh -

Either keep your day job or take some comedy classes.

Actually, just take the comedy classes.  The rest of us will work to make sure that John Kriekard unseats you in November.

Thanks to a friend for pointing this out.  It was a great catch.

This week's Clean Elections debate schedule

Info courtesy the Clean Elections website...

Videos of previously held debates, both statewide and legislative, can be found here.

Statewide candidate debates are being held in the studios of KAET(channel 8) and will be broadcast on Horizon.

Up this week: the candidates for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The Republican candidates are scheduled for Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m.

The Democratic candidates are scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, also at 7 p.m.


Legislative candidate debates are being held in venues in the various districts throughout the state.

Up this week:

Tuesday, June 29

Republican candidates for the House in LD5
6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Best Western Payson Inn
801 N. Beeline Highway 87
Payson


Wednesday, June 30

Republican candidates for the House in LD8
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Kerr Cultural Center
8110 N. Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale

I will attempt to attend the LD8 debate, schedule permitting. Hope to see you there!

So.....exactly who is running for office here?

And what office is he running for?

aka - "More fun with signs..."


















The particulars -

The main part of the sign (the red part with Montgomery's name) is 2 ft. by 8 ft. (16 sq. ft. area)

The "add-on" banner at the top (the yellow part with Arpaio's name) is 1 ft. by 8 ft. (8 sq. ft. area)

Total - 24 sq. ft. of signage.

In other words, a full third of Montgomery's sign is devoted to another officeholder.

The font of the word "Sheriff" in the top part of the sign is roughly three times larger than that of "Maricopa County Attorney" in the bottom part, yet that is the office that Montgomery is supposed to be running for.

In fact, given that the sign is located on a busy street (Baseline near Priest, in Tempe) and will be seen mostly by drivers moving by at 35 - 45 mph, about the only readable parts of the sign are "Endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio" and "Bill Montgomery."

If only for truth's sake, perhaps he would be better off declaring himself a candidate for the office of "Joe's best buddy."

Because based on this sign, the office of Maricopa County Attorney is far down Bill Montgomery's priority list.

BTW - a request/suggestion for the Montgomery campaign -

In 2006, you folks had the brilliant idea of hiring undocumented immigrants to appear in an anti-undocumented immigrants TV spot. It didn't work out so well for you (Terry Goddard won reelection as Attorney General), but you shouldn't give up trying.

This time, how about a TV spot that is anti- "sane legislators who can actually balance a budget without resorting to debt that we aren't supposed to call "debt", accounting tricks, and prayers that the economy will turn around before they are forced to enact responsible fiscal policies"?

It seems that your first ad only encouraged undocumented immigrants to stay; maybe the second will have the same effect on sane legislators.

Just sayin'...

Congressman Harry Mitchell on the DISCLOSE Act

The DISCLOSE Act is the latest increment in campaign finance reform.

Mitchell's statement on the passage of the bill, and an explanation of his vote -

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today released the following statement on H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. Despite Mitchell's objection, the bill passed 219-206.

"In January, I was disappointed, and disagreed with, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to roll back campaign finance provisions that have been set in law for over half a century - provisions which have sought to limit the role of large corporate, union and special interest money since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Not only were these provisions supported overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities in Congress and by Republican and Democratic Presidents, they had the support of a majority of the American people.

While I support campaign finance reform and its broader goals, I cannot support the DISCLOSE Act as it was written and amended. Ironically, as it wound its way through the House, the bill became an example of the same ugly special interest influence and backroom dealing it seeks to prevent. The House gave into special interests in order to garner enough votes for passage, and as a result, the legislation will not limit the role of all special interests equally. Instead, it creates carve-outs and exemptions for powerful, politically-favored organizations and political
advocacy groups, who account for some of the largest expenditures in modern-day political campaigns. If Congress is going to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, it needs to improve the integrity of federal campaigns in a more comprehensive and equitable way. Unfortunately, this does not.

I support real campaign finance reform. As a former government teacher, I believe that we need to reduce the influence of corporations, unions and special interests in elections, and make sure that the American people have a voice, remain engaged and hold candidates and elected officials accountable. American elections should be decided by Americans, and for this to happen, there needs to be transparency and accountability in all campaign spending."

It should be noted that while I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons that he gave for voting against the bill, I think he should have voted for it anyway.

The bill may not be perfect, but it's a start. (Roll call vote here.)

Later...