A mere few weeks after the end of the primary season, one that saw a one of the far right's fair-haired sons (J.D. Hayworth) fall far short in his challenge to one of the far right's pet targets, John McCain.
The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).
...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings. But I digress... :)
You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.
For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.
But he is...
Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor. It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that. What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)
Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.
I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.
Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state. As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy.
And who profit from the agony that they've caused.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Obnoxious speech is also free speech
Regarding the Florida pastor (of a "flock" of 50 or so) who has grabbed nationwide and even worldwide over his plans to burn copies of the Quran this weekend:
There are worries that the planned book-burning could incite more violence against Americans abroad (both military and civilian), but let's be honest here - the sort of people who will judge all Americans by the worst example of one are the sort of people who don't really need an excuse to hate.
In other words, people who are non-American versions of this pastor.
Bottom line regarding what the pastor is threatening to do:
It's reprehensible, hateful, ignorant, spiteful and worse.
It's also free speech.
There are worries that the planned book-burning could incite more violence against Americans abroad (both military and civilian), but let's be honest here - the sort of people who will judge all Americans by the worst example of one are the sort of people who don't really need an excuse to hate.
In other words, people who are non-American versions of this pastor.
Bottom line regarding what the pastor is threatening to do:
It's reprehensible, hateful, ignorant, spiteful and worse.
It's also free speech.
Attorney General Debate Tonight
From the Arizona Capitol Times -
The debate will air at 7 tonight on KAET (PBS 8).
A debate scheduled Wednesday evening between candidates for state attorney general is still on though it no longer is sponsored by the state’s public campaign finance system.Since both candidates, Democrat Felecia Rotellini and Republican Tom Horne, are utilizing "traditional" campaign financing, the debate isn't sponsored by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Hence the reason that I missed this one when in the post earlier this week listing debates and events (it wasn't on CE's list of debates.)
The debate will air at 7 tonight on KAET (PBS 8).
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Candidate appearances this week: Mine Inspector edition
Earlier this week, I sent an email to the various Democratic campaigns for statewide offices, offering to post their candidates' appearances for the upcoming week.
The first to respond was the campaign for Manny Cruz, Democratic nominee for State Mine Inspector. Here's the list of public events:
Wednesday 9/8 - Yuma Democratic HQ Grand Opening - 6 to 9pm - 2450 S. 4th Ave. #15, ground level, Crescent Center, Yuma, AZ
Saturday 9/11 - Navajo Nation Parade - Window Rock, AZ - 9am to 1pm
Other stops in Manny's quest to become Arizona State Mine Inspector can be found here, on his campaign website's calendar page (caveat: some of the events listed there may not be open to the public, such as the Mine Safety Professionals' meeting).
Later...
The first to respond was the campaign for Manny Cruz, Democratic nominee for State Mine Inspector. Here's the list of public events:
Wednesday 9/8 - Yuma Democratic HQ Grand Opening - 6 to 9pm - 2450 S. 4th Ave. #15, ground level, Crescent Center, Yuma, AZ
Saturday 9/11 - Navajo Nation Parade - Window Rock, AZ - 9am to 1pm
Other stops in Manny's quest to become Arizona State Mine Inspector can be found here, on his campaign website's calendar page (caveat: some of the events listed there may not be open to the public, such as the Mine Safety Professionals' meeting).
Later...
Oopsie - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to correct "official" primary results
Given recent developments, it isn't a surprise that this involves a Green write-in candidate, but thus far this appears to be less "targeted fraud" and more "general screwup." I'll update if that changes.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have called an "emergency" meeting for Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. They've posted a one-item agenda.
That item:
The most recent list of write-in results is here (courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office). The list reflect's O'Dowd's single write-in vote in LD6, but it was last updated on September 3.
The incorrect original canvass was approved unanimously by the Board on September 1, hence the need for Tuesday's emergency meeting.
Note2: There is a special meeting of the MCBOS scheduled for Wednesday, but no agenda has been posted as yet.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have called an "emergency" meeting for Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. They've posted a one-item agenda.
That item:
Amend the official canvass of the August 24, 2010 Primary Election regarding Green Party candidate, Deborah Odowd -- candidate for State Representative, Legislative District 6. The write in vote for Deborah Odowd should be recorded in Legislative District 6, not in Legislative District 17 as initially reported. The official canvass will be amended to include the following correction: "2010 Primary Election Official Write In Results for the Green Party in Legislative District 6, State Representative: ODOWD, DEBORAH, 1 vote."Note: I've left the incorrect spelling of O'Dowd's name intact (it's capital "O", apostrophe, capital "D", not the way that they have spelled it).
The most recent list of write-in results is here (courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office). The list reflect's O'Dowd's single write-in vote in LD6, but it was last updated on September 3.
The incorrect original canvass was approved unanimously by the Board on September 1, hence the need for Tuesday's emergency meeting.
Note2: There is a special meeting of the MCBOS scheduled for Wednesday, but no agenda has been posted as yet.
Monday, September 06, 2010
New Brewer video parody from the Arizona Democratic Party
It's based on the movie 28 Days Later, a movie characterized as "a terrifying zombie movie and a sharp political allegory."
The movie was frightening, and so is this video.
The movie was frightening for its harrowing depiction of "what could be."
The video is frightening because it is so close "what is" the harrowing reality in Arizona.
The movie was frightening, and so is this video.
The movie was frightening for its harrowing depiction of "what could be."
The video is frightening because it is so close "what is" the harrowing reality in Arizona.
AZGOP/Green candidate scandal coverage goes national
...It's made it all the way to the east coast now, and not in just a weekly or suburban daily that no one outside of its base market reads.
From the New York Times -
Mr. May can insist from now until November that the "candidates" that he recruited are real, but they didn't even vote for themselves.
The article contains a number of pictures of May and the faux-Green candidates together along Mill Ave. in Tempe. Here's a pic of May and one of the candidates, Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, from last week's LD17 Clean Elections debate. Goshorn was scheduled to appear during the Senate half of the debate, but he declined to do so, because according to the NYT article, he felt a "bad vibe."
Pic below of Goshorn (left) and May, from the night of the debate.
Later...
From the New York Times -
Benjamin Pearcy, a candidate for statewide office in Arizona, lists his campaign office as a Starbucks. The small business he refers to in his campaign statement is him strumming his guitar on the street. The internal debate he is having in advance of his coming televised debate is whether he ought to gel his hair into his trademark faux Mohawk.
{snip}
Mr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats.
{snip}
...Steve May, the Republican operative who signed up some of the candidates along Mill Avenue, a bohemian commercial strip next to Arizona State University, insists that a real political movement has been stirred up that has nothing to do with subterfuge.
“Did I recruit candidates? Yes,” said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. “Are they fake candidates? No way.”
Mr. May can insist from now until November that the "candidates" that he recruited are real, but they didn't even vote for themselves.
The article contains a number of pictures of May and the faux-Green candidates together along Mill Ave. in Tempe. Here's a pic of May and one of the candidates, Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, from last week's LD17 Clean Elections debate. Goshorn was scheduled to appear during the Senate half of the debate, but he declined to do so, because according to the NYT article, he felt a "bad vibe."
Pic below of Goshorn (left) and May, from the night of the debate.
Later...
Sunday, September 05, 2010
When is age a factor in a candidate's viability? If you ask Republicans, only when the candidate is a Democrat
Has Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit started working directly for the Schweikert campaign (if he has, it's not obvious from the campaign's most recent filings with the FEC)? Or has he chosen to turn his blog into a Schweikert campaign press release outlet?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
Saturday, September 04, 2010
For the week of September 6, 2010: Upcoming debates
From the website of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (note: there aren't any CCEC debates for statewide candidates scheuled for this week) -
District 06
September 07, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
1940 E Pinnacle Peak Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85027
District 16
September 08, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:30 PM
ASU Mercado
Room C145
502 E Monroe Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
District 15
September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Radisson City Central
3600 N 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013
District 27
September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
West Campus Student Lounge
2202 W Anklam Rd
Tucson, AZ
And for a non-Clean Elections legislative debate
District 8
September 7. 2010
Scottsdale Republic candidate debate
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Kiva
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ
And for a non-legislative debate
Scottsdale City Council candidate forum
McDowell Sonoran Conservancy
September 8, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Granite Reef Senior Center
1700 N. Granite Reef Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ
Later...
District 06
September 07, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
1940 E Pinnacle Peak Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85027
District 16
September 08, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:30 PM
ASU Mercado
Room C145
502 E Monroe Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
District 15
September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Radisson City Central
3600 N 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013
District 27
September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
West Campus Student Lounge
2202 W Anklam Rd
Tucson, AZ
And for a non-Clean Elections legislative debate
District 8
September 7. 2010
Scottsdale Republic candidate debate
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Kiva
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ
And for a non-legislative debate
Scottsdale City Council candidate forum
McDowell Sonoran Conservancy
September 8, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Granite Reef Senior Center
1700 N. Granite Reef Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ
Later...
About the recent CD5 poll numbers (and CD1 and CD8)
Serving to fill in the deafening silence from the RW blogs (zero posts and counting so far) regarding Jan Brewer's performance has been the recently released poll numbers purporting to show that the R candidates in CDs 1, 5, and 8 are head of or tied with the Democratic incumbents in those districts.
What the R blogs haven't mentioned in their crowing about the poll are the partisan biases of the groups behind the poll.
The poll was commissioned by a 501c(4) group called the American Action Network (AAN). It's part of an organization of different groups created to serve as a Republican advocacy effort "independent" of the Republican Party in its quest to regain control of the federal government.
Among those involved with AAN -
Rob Collins, president of AAN, and former chief of staff to Eric Cantor, Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum (one of the related groups mentioned above) was a senior adviser to John McCain during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign
Norm Coleman, CEO of AAN, a Republican former U.S. Senator (lost to Al Franken. YES!)
Fred Malek, an AAN board member, was a Nixon administration operative who has become a big fundraiser for the Republican party (and John McCain)
Haley Barbour, an AAN board member, is the Republican Governor of Mississippi and head of the Republican Governors Association
The polling was conducted by the firm Ayers McHenry, a company that openly, even proudly, proclaims that it is partisan and supportive of Republican candidates and causes. Not that reading their website's list of clients isn't a dead giveaway.
The polling data has been released through AAN's affiliate group, American Action Forum (AAF).
I'm not qualified to discuss the technical aspects of the way that the poll was conducted, but there seem to be issues with the methodology of the poll - a small sample size, a universe that seems to be skewed toward self-identified conservatives out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole, and questions, that if not quite of "push poll" quality, definitely look to be designed to elicit certain desired responses.
All of which serve to undermine the credibility of the results, making it seem likely that the "poll" is less "scientific research" and more "messaging research" or even "wishful thinking."
At best, this should be considered to be a third party-funded "internal poll." As the Parraz campaign (and I) learned in the just-completed primary cycle, internal polls have a tendency to match the spin that is placed on them and not to reflect real sentiment.
To be sure, the Democrats in question - Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1), Gabrielle Giffords (CD8), and Harry Mitchell (CD5) - have tough races ahead of them.
Giffords and Mitchell both face significant Republican registration advantages in their districts (~18K in CD8, ~ 40K in CD5). Kirkpatrick has a Democratic advantage (~ 20K) to work with in CD1, but her district is heavily rural and as recently as 2006 elected a [corrupt] Republican (Rick Renzi). It's a district that has been able to elect conservative Democrat Jack Brown and (relatively) moderate Republican Bill Konopnicki to the Arizona House of Representatives (LD5, each).
In short, all three knew early on, even before their first races for the seats in Congress that they now occupy, that they would *never* have easy paths to reelection, and have been running intelligent, energetic campaigns ever since.
Caveat: I have volunteered for the Mitchell campaign in the recent past, and will again in the near future.
When more reputable and independent polling organizations, such as Gallup or Behavior Research Center (aka - Rocky Mountain Polls), weigh in on AZ's congressional races, those results will have much more credibility than a glorified internal poll.
What the R blogs haven't mentioned in their crowing about the poll are the partisan biases of the groups behind the poll.
The poll was commissioned by a 501c(4) group called the American Action Network (AAN). It's part of an organization of different groups created to serve as a Republican advocacy effort "independent" of the Republican Party in its quest to regain control of the federal government.
Among those involved with AAN -
Rob Collins, president of AAN, and former chief of staff to Eric Cantor, Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum (one of the related groups mentioned above) was a senior adviser to John McCain during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign
Norm Coleman, CEO of AAN, a Republican former U.S. Senator (lost to Al Franken. YES!)
Fred Malek, an AAN board member, was a Nixon administration operative who has become a big fundraiser for the Republican party (and John McCain)
Haley Barbour, an AAN board member, is the Republican Governor of Mississippi and head of the Republican Governors Association
The polling was conducted by the firm Ayers McHenry, a company that openly, even proudly, proclaims that it is partisan and supportive of Republican candidates and causes. Not that reading their website's list of clients isn't a dead giveaway.
The polling data has been released through AAN's affiliate group, American Action Forum (AAF).
I'm not qualified to discuss the technical aspects of the way that the poll was conducted, but there seem to be issues with the methodology of the poll - a small sample size, a universe that seems to be skewed toward self-identified conservatives out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole, and questions, that if not quite of "push poll" quality, definitely look to be designed to elicit certain desired responses.
All of which serve to undermine the credibility of the results, making it seem likely that the "poll" is less "scientific research" and more "messaging research" or even "wishful thinking."
At best, this should be considered to be a third party-funded "internal poll." As the Parraz campaign (and I) learned in the just-completed primary cycle, internal polls have a tendency to match the spin that is placed on them and not to reflect real sentiment.
To be sure, the Democrats in question - Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1), Gabrielle Giffords (CD8), and Harry Mitchell (CD5) - have tough races ahead of them.
Giffords and Mitchell both face significant Republican registration advantages in their districts (~18K in CD8, ~ 40K in CD5). Kirkpatrick has a Democratic advantage (~ 20K) to work with in CD1, but her district is heavily rural and as recently as 2006 elected a [corrupt] Republican (Rick Renzi). It's a district that has been able to elect conservative Democrat Jack Brown and (relatively) moderate Republican Bill Konopnicki to the Arizona House of Representatives (LD5, each).
In short, all three knew early on, even before their first races for the seats in Congress that they now occupy, that they would *never* have easy paths to reelection, and have been running intelligent, energetic campaigns ever since.
Caveat: I have volunteered for the Mitchell campaign in the recent past, and will again in the near future.
When more reputable and independent polling organizations, such as Gallup or Behavior Research Center (aka - Rocky Mountain Polls), weigh in on AZ's congressional races, those results will have much more credibility than a glorified internal poll.
Friday, September 03, 2010
"Gee, ya think?" headline of the day
After spending the last two days running from journalists and serving as the target of national ridicule for her performance during the Clean Elections debate on Wednesday, Jan Brewer has finally come clean about her oft-repeated claim that there were headless bodies in the Arizona desert.
From the Arizona Republic -
Here's the vid -
The relevent spouting starts at around the 37 second mark.
In her statement, she claimed to be pointing out that there was violence across the border with Mexico that could spill over and didn't mean that there was any in Arizona.
Read the article, and watch the interview she gave to Fox News. She was completely unequivocal when she claimed that there were headless bodies found in Arizona.
Vote for Terry Goddard for Governor.
From the Arizona Republic -
Brewer says she was wrong about beheadingsNow, lest a reader think that she issued a full "mea culpa" over her repeated attempts at fearmongering, here's the money quote -
"That was an error, if I said that," Brewer said about beheadings occurring in Arizona."If"?!?
Here's the vid -
The relevent spouting starts at around the 37 second mark.
In her statement, she claimed to be pointing out that there was violence across the border with Mexico that could spill over and didn't mean that there was any in Arizona.
Read the article, and watch the interview she gave to Fox News. She was completely unequivocal when she claimed that there were headless bodies found in Arizona.
Vote for Terry Goddard for Governor.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Recap of the LD17 Clean Elections debate
On Wednesday night, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission held its debate for the candidates in the LD17 races for state senate and state representative.
While only one candidate in each race is a Clean Elections candidate, all of the candidates were invited. Most, but not all, took advantage of the opportunity to speak to the approximately 200 voters in attendance.
As pure theater, the senate debate was boring - only one candidate, State Representative David Schapira, showed up.
Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, the faux-Green write in candidate, was expected (the CCEC went so far as to print up a name tent for him) but he didn't appear at the forum. He was in the audience, however. (working on obtaining pics)
Republican candidate Wendy Rogers was a complete no-show, not even bothering to attend to watch the debate and meet with interested voters.
She put up a message on her Facebook page saying that "Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance."
I don't know what "distance" she is talking about - one could meet and greet any of the candidates present before and after the forum.
Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed "Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother," not only did she circle "Support," she expanded upon that answer by adding "Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother."
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale.
In any event, the candidate "debate" became a conversation between Schapira and Russ Knocke, the moderator of the event (See above pic)
Schapira used his time to lay out his political resume and past accomplishments and his vision for the future.
His trademark issue and political passion, both historically and in his future plans, is protecting and strengthening Arizona's education system.
Calling the Republican majority in the legislature "pennywise and pound foolish," a line that he borrowed from Republican John Kavanagh, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, he sharply criticized the way that the Rs have [not] handled the state's fiscal crisis, particularly in regards to education funding (Arizona has a "terrible model on how to run an education system") and health care (the lege has "raised the bar" on AHCCCS eligibility when ever-more people need its safety net).*
* - Don't fret R readers, Kavanagh is still drinking the Kool-Aid - within days of urging during a committee meeting that the state not to be "pennywise and pound foolish" he voted to cut education funding, close state parks that were a net revenue generator, and end KidsCare.
The House debate was far livelier. Six candidates - Democrats Ben Arredondo and Ed Ableser, Republicans Don Hawker and Steve May, Green Gregor Knauer, and Libertarian Damian Trabel - were there, though only Ableser has accepted Clean Elections funding.
While Knauer and Trabel laid out their respective positions well (or not-so-well, depending), the debate became focused on the differences between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
Even at that, most of the open animosity was between Ableser and May.
Hawker spent most of his time piping up to blame all of AZ's (and the country's) ills on abortion and "unbridled liberalism" and Arredondo spent his time focusing on Arizona's devastated education system and "jobs, jobs, jobs."
I'll give Hawker credit for one thing - he may be a one-issue candidate, but he is focused enough on that one issue to turn any answer to any question into a diatribe against abortion.
And "diatribe" is the right word too - when CCEC puts up the video recording of the debate, watch it. He uses lines like "scissors removing the brains of babies" and does so with a straight face.
Ben Arredondo spent his time on one thing, too - talking about what he will do in office if elected. Like Schapira (and Ableser, too), the career teacher and public servant will be focused on education. He also pledged to work "across the aisle" for the benefit of the district, teaming up with Republicans on issues that they can agree on. That is something that Arredondo may be uniquely qualified to do, as the former school board and Tempe City Council member, and former Republican, has a long history of working for real world solutions for real world problems.
However focused those two were, the featured attraction in the House debate was Steve May constantly lobbing rhetorical bombs (and personal insults) at Ed Ableser.
Apparently, May must believe that Ableser is the one who uncovered his involvement with the burgeoning AZGOP/sham Green candidates scandal,
I don't really know who did figure out May's involvement, but since May wasn't exactly hiding his involvement with some of the suspect candidates, his involvement could have been uncovered by almost anyone.
Anyway, May started right in on Ableser, claiming that Ableser's biggest failing as a legislator is his unwillingness to workfor "with" the Republican majority in a bipartisan manner.
Ummm - I can state unequivocally that the R caucus doesn't want any Democrats to work with them. During 2009's budget dust-up when the Rs couldn't get enough votes from their own caucus to pass a budget, attempting to "work with" Democrats meant that the Governor, President of the State Senate, and Speaker of the State House met in the Speaker's office and proceeded to call in each member of the D caucus to *tell* them to vote for their budget. It didn't work.
May kept taking his shots at Ableser, until he was not-so-subtly schooled by Ben Arredondo, who, to the approval of most of the audience members, pointed out that he was there to talk about his vision and candidacy, not to take swipes at the other candidates. After that. May cut back (but didn't cut out) the direct attacks.
According to May, the best reason to vote for him is that he is a Republican, and would be part of the majority party.
Seriously, that was the best he had to offer.
Ableser took his time to point out his record of accomplishment and advocacy for the district.
Among other things, he supports broadening the state's tax base (the sales-tax centered model currently used by Arizona is "very archaic"), using incentives to push entrepeneurship in Arizona, especially around "green" and solar technology, and, of course, buttressing the state's education system.
Finally, a curious thing occurred after the forum was over -
From the stage, May started barking at fellow blogger Randy, the author of Dry Heat Democrat. Not sure why. Randy barked back (a little) in response, but it didn't escalate beyond that. I'll leave it to him to tell the story on his blog. It should be up in a day or two.
Interested voters can go to the website of the Clean Elections Commission to view the debate online (once the CCEC posts the video record)
More pics from the forum -
Left: The House candidates (L to R): Ableser, Arredondo, Hawker, Knauer, May, and Trabel.
While only one candidate in each race is a Clean Elections candidate, all of the candidates were invited. Most, but not all, took advantage of the opportunity to speak to the approximately 200 voters in attendance.
As pure theater, the senate debate was boring - only one candidate, State Representative David Schapira, showed up.
Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, the faux-Green write in candidate, was expected (the CCEC went so far as to print up a name tent for him) but he didn't appear at the forum. He was in the audience, however. (working on obtaining pics)
Republican candidate Wendy Rogers was a complete no-show, not even bothering to attend to watch the debate and meet with interested voters.
She put up a message on her Facebook page saying that "Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance."
I don't know what "distance" she is talking about - one could meet and greet any of the candidates present before and after the forum.
Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed "Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother," not only did she circle "Support," she expanded upon that answer by adding "Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother."
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale.
In any event, the candidate "debate" became a conversation between Schapira and Russ Knocke, the moderator of the event (See above pic)
Schapira used his time to lay out his political resume and past accomplishments and his vision for the future.
His trademark issue and political passion, both historically and in his future plans, is protecting and strengthening Arizona's education system.
Calling the Republican majority in the legislature "pennywise and pound foolish," a line that he borrowed from Republican John Kavanagh, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, he sharply criticized the way that the Rs have [not] handled the state's fiscal crisis, particularly in regards to education funding (Arizona has a "terrible model on how to run an education system") and health care (the lege has "raised the bar" on AHCCCS eligibility when ever-more people need its safety net).*
* - Don't fret R readers, Kavanagh is still drinking the Kool-Aid - within days of urging during a committee meeting that the state not to be "pennywise and pound foolish" he voted to cut education funding, close state parks that were a net revenue generator, and end KidsCare.
The House debate was far livelier. Six candidates - Democrats Ben Arredondo and Ed Ableser, Republicans Don Hawker and Steve May, Green Gregor Knauer, and Libertarian Damian Trabel - were there, though only Ableser has accepted Clean Elections funding.
While Knauer and Trabel laid out their respective positions well (or not-so-well, depending), the debate became focused on the differences between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
Even at that, most of the open animosity was between Ableser and May.
Hawker spent most of his time piping up to blame all of AZ's (and the country's) ills on abortion and "unbridled liberalism" and Arredondo spent his time focusing on Arizona's devastated education system and "jobs, jobs, jobs."
I'll give Hawker credit for one thing - he may be a one-issue candidate, but he is focused enough on that one issue to turn any answer to any question into a diatribe against abortion.
And "diatribe" is the right word too - when CCEC puts up the video recording of the debate, watch it. He uses lines like "scissors removing the brains of babies" and does so with a straight face.
Ben Arredondo spent his time on one thing, too - talking about what he will do in office if elected. Like Schapira (and Ableser, too), the career teacher and public servant will be focused on education. He also pledged to work "across the aisle" for the benefit of the district, teaming up with Republicans on issues that they can agree on. That is something that Arredondo may be uniquely qualified to do, as the former school board and Tempe City Council member, and former Republican, has a long history of working for real world solutions for real world problems.
However focused those two were, the featured attraction in the House debate was Steve May constantly lobbing rhetorical bombs (and personal insults) at Ed Ableser.
Apparently, May must believe that Ableser is the one who uncovered his involvement with the burgeoning AZGOP/sham Green candidates scandal,
I don't really know who did figure out May's involvement, but since May wasn't exactly hiding his involvement with some of the suspect candidates, his involvement could have been uncovered by almost anyone.
Anyway, May started right in on Ableser, claiming that Ableser's biggest failing as a legislator is his unwillingness to work
Ummm - I can state unequivocally that the R caucus doesn't want any Democrats to work with them. During 2009's budget dust-up when the Rs couldn't get enough votes from their own caucus to pass a budget, attempting to "work with" Democrats meant that the Governor, President of the State Senate, and Speaker of the State House met in the Speaker's office and proceeded to call in each member of the D caucus to *tell* them to vote for their budget. It didn't work.
May kept taking his shots at Ableser, until he was not-so-subtly schooled by Ben Arredondo, who, to the approval of most of the audience members, pointed out that he was there to talk about his vision and candidacy, not to take swipes at the other candidates. After that. May cut back (but didn't cut out) the direct attacks.
According to May, the best reason to vote for him is that he is a Republican, and would be part of the majority party.
Seriously, that was the best he had to offer.
Ableser took his time to point out his record of accomplishment and advocacy for the district.
Among other things, he supports broadening the state's tax base (the sales-tax centered model currently used by Arizona is "very archaic"), using incentives to push entrepeneurship in Arizona, especially around "green" and solar technology, and, of course, buttressing the state's education system.
Finally, a curious thing occurred after the forum was over -
From the stage, May started barking at fellow blogger Randy, the author of Dry Heat Democrat. Not sure why. Randy barked back (a little) in response, but it didn't escalate beyond that. I'll leave it to him to tell the story on his blog. It should be up in a day or two.
Interested voters can go to the website of the Clean Elections Commission to view the debate online (once the CCEC posts the video record)
More pics from the forum -
Left: The House candidates (L to R): Ableser, Arredondo, Hawker, Knauer, May, and Trabel.
Left: The crowd, pic taken during the break between the two debates, when everybody could stand and stretch their legs.
Later...
Note: apologies for the formatting of this post. Apparently Blogger doesn't like it when you put multiple pics into one post...
Goddard wins debate over Brewer
...And not just on content of his positions (yeah, I'm biased, so I'm not getting into those, too much).
Tactically, the debate was a solid win for Goddard, and not just because Brewer did such a horrible job ("we has did"!! YES!).
Like many folks, my opinion on the race is already well-defined (GO GODDARD!). He did a good job on Wednesday night, but even if he had turned in a mediocre performance he'd still have my support.
Likewise, Brewer supporters would still support her even if she had just stared into the camera and drooled (which might have been an improvement over the performance she turned in, but I digress...)
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission must really have had it in for me when they scheduled both the LD17 and Governor's debates for the same time.
Thank God for the wonders of technology.
Went to the LD17 debate at ASU and watched the debate between the candidates for governor via DVR.
In addition, the debate can be found on the website of KAET, the PBS affiliate in Phoenix, and on YouTube (the YouTube video is embedded below).
After viewing the debate, and pondering Brewer's grammatical gaffes (i.e. - "we have did what was right for Arizona.." at the 4:45 mark), deflections (i.e. - blaming unions and SB1070-inspired boycotts for Arizona's long-cratered economy and the decades of damage to Arizona's education system wrought by the decades of unrelenting attacks on it by Republicans in the legislature) and outright lies (Brewer at the 39:00 mark: "We have balanced the budget!"), one clear observation emerges -
As bad as Brewer did during the debate, the Rs' biggest tactical mistake was allowing their faux-Green candidate, Larry Gist, anywhere near a camera and microphone.
His positions of "privatize prisons" and "health care reform violates states' rights" and more, he gave strong evidence that he's nothing more than a Republican plant in the race.
Any Green party voters watching that debate would have realized that if they vote for Gist, they'll just be allowing themselves to be used by cynical Republican operatives like Derrick Lee.
According to the Secretary of State's latest voter registration count, there are 4585 registered Greens in Arizona.
Most of those voters were almost certainly pushed into the Goddard column by the debate.
Tactically, the debate was a solid win for Goddard, and not just because Brewer did such a horrible job ("we has did"!! YES!).
Like many folks, my opinion on the race is already well-defined (GO GODDARD!). He did a good job on Wednesday night, but even if he had turned in a mediocre performance he'd still have my support.
Likewise, Brewer supporters would still support her even if she had just stared into the camera and drooled (which might have been an improvement over the performance she turned in, but I digress...)
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission must really have had it in for me when they scheduled both the LD17 and Governor's debates for the same time.
Thank God for the wonders of technology.
Went to the LD17 debate at ASU and watched the debate between the candidates for governor via DVR.
In addition, the debate can be found on the website of KAET, the PBS affiliate in Phoenix, and on YouTube (the YouTube video is embedded below).
After viewing the debate, and pondering Brewer's grammatical gaffes (i.e. - "we have did what was right for Arizona.." at the 4:45 mark), deflections (i.e. - blaming unions and SB1070-inspired boycotts for Arizona's long-cratered economy and the decades of damage to Arizona's education system wrought by the decades of unrelenting attacks on it by Republicans in the legislature) and outright lies (Brewer at the 39:00 mark: "We have balanced the budget!"), one clear observation emerges -
As bad as Brewer did during the debate, the Rs' biggest tactical mistake was allowing their faux-Green candidate, Larry Gist, anywhere near a camera and microphone.
His positions of "privatize prisons" and "health care reform violates states' rights" and more, he gave strong evidence that he's nothing more than a Republican plant in the race.
Any Green party voters watching that debate would have realized that if they vote for Gist, they'll just be allowing themselves to be used by cynical Republican operatives like Derrick Lee.
According to the Secretary of State's latest voter registration count, there are 4585 registered Greens in Arizona.
Most of those voters were almost certainly pushed into the Goddard column by the debate.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Pics from the LD17 Clean Elections debates
Will do a more complete recap tomorrow (I need to get some sleep now), but here are a few pics...
Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo, Democratic candidates for LD17 House, prior to the debate
David Schapira, Democratic candidate for LD17 State Senate, prior to his "debate" (more on that in a minute)...
Schapira and his opponents Wendy Rogers (R) and Anthony Goshorn (G*), with Rogers and Goshorn disguised as empty chairs. Seriously, neither one showed up. Apparently Rogers notified organizers prior to the event, even though originally she was expected to appear, but Goshorn was a pure no show (check out the name tent next to Schapira's).
Well, not a *pure* no show - he was in the audience. Just not on the stage.
All of the House candidates who appeared at the debate. From left to right: Ed Ableser, Ben Arredondo, Don Hawker (R), Gregor Knauer (G), Steve May (R), and Damian Trabel (Libertarian)
Arredondo making a point.
Later...
Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo, Democratic candidates for LD17 House, prior to the debate
David Schapira, Democratic candidate for LD17 State Senate, prior to his "debate" (more on that in a minute)...
Schapira and his opponents Wendy Rogers (R) and Anthony Goshorn (G*), with Rogers and Goshorn disguised as empty chairs. Seriously, neither one showed up. Apparently Rogers notified organizers prior to the event, even though originally she was expected to appear, but Goshorn was a pure no show (check out the name tent next to Schapira's).
Well, not a *pure* no show - he was in the audience. Just not on the stage.
All of the House candidates who appeared at the debate. From left to right: Ed Ableser, Ben Arredondo, Don Hawker (R), Gregor Knauer (G), Steve May (R), and Damian Trabel (Libertarian)
Arredondo making a point.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)














