...Terry Goddard (D), Jan Brewer (R) and Barry Hess (L) sat down with the Arizona Republic's editorial board to talk about their visions for Arizona. Brewer's vision: cut education, health services, the Department of Economic Security, and anything else that benefits the working and middle classes while protecting tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.
...Ken Bennett, the appointed Arizona Secretary of State, had pledged to not endorse (at the 14:25 mark in the video) any candidates in a race overseen by his office. However, that pledge has gone by the wayside, as the man who will run the state's elections has endorsed fellow Republicans like Brenda Burns (Corporation Commission), Scott Bundgaard (LD4 State Senate) and Steve Pierce (LD1 State Senate).
FYI - Democratic nominee for Secretary of State Chris Deschene has pledged not to endorse candidates in elections that he would oversee as SOS, and has stuck by that pledge.
...Democratic nominee for Attorney General Felecia Rotellini has demanded an apology from Republican Tom Horne and his campaign for falsely claiming that Rotellini "has never tried a case in her entire life." The Arizona Republic article linked to "demanded" indicates that Horne is now aware that Rotellini *has* tried cases before a jury, but hasn't backed down from his statement or issued an apology. Why should he, when the lie serves his purposes better than the truth.
...Republican candidates all over the state have kept to the master plan of running and hiding from voters whenever possible. The latest examples of this: Russell Pearce blowing off the Clean Elections debate in LD18 on Monday and Kirk Adams and Justin Olson doing the same last week in LD19. In both cases, the Republicans aren't running as Clean candidates and therefore don't have to participate in CE debates, but they aren't participating in other events that put them in the same places as their Democratic opponents and voters.
...Jan Brewer's "Arizona Commission on Privatization and Efficiency" has issued its first set of recommendations on which state services and operations can be given over to private vendors, and other "efficiency" measures, in order to save the state money.
The suggestions include:
Privatizing the state's email system
Selling state parks
Hiring private companies to manage highway rest areas (if the feds approve, not likely, but anything is possible)
Purchasing software that would allow State computers to be shut down remotely
The Commission includes a number of Republican Party/anti-government stalwarts.
Mark Brnovich, chair, current the Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming, and a former executive with a private prison company (Brewer just *loves* those guys, doesn't she?)
Chad Kirkpatrick, Director of the Government Information Technology Agency, and chair of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, the Arizona incarnation/affiliate of Americans for Prosperity, a corporate lobbying group
John Halikowski, Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, a former legislative researcher working for the Republican caucus of the AZ lege. He was instrumental in crafting legislation mandating privatization. His bio indicates that he spent six years working in executive positions for MVD, and I'm not sure of this, but the math looks right for him to have worked there during Russell Pearce's corruption-laden administration of that agency. Will check into that...
Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a former Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, and a man who has never seen a public service that shouldn't be privatized in a way that maximizes some corporation's profits (whether that corporation can deliver the service as well is irrelevant)
Leonard Gilroy, a senior staffer at something called "The Reason Foundation," an organization that claims to be an independent think tank dedicated to "free market" principles, but their dedication to "free" markets isn't free. According to Sourcewatch, much of their funding comes from industry sources and extremists like the infamous Koch Brothers.
Stan Levine, a retired chemical company CEO and a senior member of Joe Arpaio's "posse"
There were a few more, but none who were there to represent the public interest.
With an assemblage like that, is it any wonder that they want to give state parks, which are supposed to be managed for the benefit of the people of Arizona, to private corporations to be managed for the benefit of those corporations?
It all looks like it's part of the GOP's game plan of running government into the ground (by refusing to actually govern responsibly by say, balancing the freakin' budget), and when government inevitably fails on their watch, use the failure that they've induced as an excuse to further sell off public assets to private groups.
Later...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Maybe the Cardinals should invest in QB or defensive secondary depth
...because after Sunday's blowout loss to Atlanta, it seems obvious that their weaknesses aren't because of people filling prescriptions for medical marijuana.
From The Phoenix Business Journal -
It's kind of hard to expect the Cards' players to be focused on doing the best possible job on the field when team ownership and management aren't focused on putting the best possible team on the field.
Firedoglake coverage here.
From The Phoenix Business Journal -
The Arizona Cardinals are opposing Proposition 203 which could make medical marijuana legal in the state and let chronically ill or severe pain patients buy small amounts of pot from state licensed clinics with a doctor’s approval.The "today" referenced in the quote is last Wednesday, September 15.
The Cardinals gave $10,000 to Keep AZ Drug Free today, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.
It's kind of hard to expect the Cards' players to be focused on doing the best possible job on the field when team ownership and management aren't focused on putting the best possible team on the field.
Firedoglake coverage here.
Prop. 111 appears to be the "least bad" of the lege-initiated ballot questions, but appearances can be deceiving
Wow. The Arizona Legislature has found a way to turn what should have been the least problematical ballot question, the one that, if passed, would rename the office of the Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor, into the one most likely to get Arizona slapped around in federal court.
Yet again.
And that's an accomplishment, considering that the other measures foisted off on us by the legislature include an anti-affirmative action question (Prop. 107), an anti-health care reform question (Prop. 106), and an anti-union question (Prop. 113).
However, dedicated ideologues that they are, they pulled it off.
The rationale for the measure is rooted in the fact that it's been nearly a quarter-century since Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office as the result of an election. Because of an impeachment (Evan Mecham), some felony convictions (Da Fifester) and a resignation to accept a promotion to D.C. (Janet Napolitano), three of Arizona's Secretarys of State have ascended to the Governor's office - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, and Jan Brewer.
The supporters of the measure want to highlight to the public that the SOS is second in line for the ninth floor and want to accomplish that by changing the vote for SOS to a vote for Lt. Governor. The actual day-to-day duties of the job wouldn't change.
They also wish to make sure that the Lt. Governor and the Governor are from the same party in order to avoid situations where the SOS was a member of a different party than that of the governor she replaced (Mofford was a D, she replaced R Mecham; Brewer is an R who replaced a D in Napolitano).
To be sure, there was some contention over the SOS/Lt. Governor measure, contention that crosses partisan lines - the limited opposition in the lege came from Rs, yet personally, I (a Democrat) don't support it.
Regardless of the name of the office, the duties will still be that of a secretary of state, not a 'governor-in-waiting" and people should know what they are voting for. It would have been better to create an actual office of lieutenant governor (not exactly a radical concept - most states have one) or to simply remind voters that AZ doesn't have a Lt. Governor and the line of succession should be one of the factors they consider when choosing an SOS.
There are other problems with the measure. Robert Robb, a conservative columnist for the Arizona Republic, has pointed out that the language of Prop. 111 would effectively bar independent voters, those not affiliated with a specific recognized political party, from holding either office.
From Prop. 111 -
As Robb points out in his column, in the era of "disenchantment" with partisan politics, it's probably not the brightest idea to been seen as actively disenfranchising non-affiliated office seekers.
Something else hasn't been pointed out, at least not anywhere that I've yet seen - Arizona is one of the states still subject to the "preclearance" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in regard to anything that affects election practices or procedures.
Before any changes to such practices and procedures can go into effect, the changes have to be examined and approved by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
And as something that restricts the pool of candidates eligible to hold the office that oversees the conduct of elections, this definitely seems to qualify for DOJ examination under the Voting Rights Act.
A couple of conversations with people who are a lot more familiar with this area than me seems to bear this out, but the DOJ cannot and will not step in until and unless Prop. 111 is passed by the voters (until then, officially, they have nothing to consider).
Supporters of the measure acknowledge that there are problems, but feel that they can be corrected with bills passed by the legislature.
Perhaps some of the issues could be so corrected, but the actual language of a voter-approved amendment to the AZ Constitution cannot be touched by the legislature. Period.
The state's Republicans like to gripe about Arizona's inclusion on the list of states subject to "preclearance," but moves like this only serve to ensure that Arizona will remain on the list for the foreseeable future.
Updates as more info becomes available...
Yet again.
And that's an accomplishment, considering that the other measures foisted off on us by the legislature include an anti-affirmative action question (Prop. 107), an anti-health care reform question (Prop. 106), and an anti-union question (Prop. 113).
However, dedicated ideologues that they are, they pulled it off.
The rationale for the measure is rooted in the fact that it's been nearly a quarter-century since Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office as the result of an election. Because of an impeachment (Evan Mecham), some felony convictions (Da Fifester) and a resignation to accept a promotion to D.C. (Janet Napolitano), three of Arizona's Secretarys of State have ascended to the Governor's office - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, and Jan Brewer.
The supporters of the measure want to highlight to the public that the SOS is second in line for the ninth floor and want to accomplish that by changing the vote for SOS to a vote for Lt. Governor. The actual day-to-day duties of the job wouldn't change.
They also wish to make sure that the Lt. Governor and the Governor are from the same party in order to avoid situations where the SOS was a member of a different party than that of the governor she replaced (Mofford was a D, she replaced R Mecham; Brewer is an R who replaced a D in Napolitano).
To be sure, there was some contention over the SOS/Lt. Governor measure, contention that crosses partisan lines - the limited opposition in the lege came from Rs, yet personally, I (a Democrat) don't support it.
Regardless of the name of the office, the duties will still be that of a secretary of state, not a 'governor-in-waiting" and people should know what they are voting for. It would have been better to create an actual office of lieutenant governor (not exactly a radical concept - most states have one) or to simply remind voters that AZ doesn't have a Lt. Governor and the line of succession should be one of the factors they consider when choosing an SOS.
There are other problems with the measure. Robert Robb, a conservative columnist for the Arizona Republic, has pointed out that the language of Prop. 111 would effectively bar independent voters, those not affiliated with a specific recognized political party, from holding either office.
From Prop. 111 -
C. DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION, CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN FOR THAT OFFICE SEPARATELY FROM ANY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. ON COMPLETION OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION, EACH NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN ON A TICKET AS A JOINT CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WITH THE NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FROM THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR. AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, A SINGLE VOTE FOR A NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A VOTE FOR THAT NOMINEE'S TICKET, INCLUDING THE NOMINEE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. FOR ANY WINNING CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THAT WINNING CANDIDATE'S JOINT CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE WINNING CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.Please note the repeated use of the word "shall." The proposed language would make partisan affiliation for seekers of those two offices mandatory.
As Robb points out in his column, in the era of "disenchantment" with partisan politics, it's probably not the brightest idea to been seen as actively disenfranchising non-affiliated office seekers.
Something else hasn't been pointed out, at least not anywhere that I've yet seen - Arizona is one of the states still subject to the "preclearance" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in regard to anything that affects election practices or procedures.
Before any changes to such practices and procedures can go into effect, the changes have to be examined and approved by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
And as something that restricts the pool of candidates eligible to hold the office that oversees the conduct of elections, this definitely seems to qualify for DOJ examination under the Voting Rights Act.
A couple of conversations with people who are a lot more familiar with this area than me seems to bear this out, but the DOJ cannot and will not step in until and unless Prop. 111 is passed by the voters (until then, officially, they have nothing to consider).
Supporters of the measure acknowledge that there are problems, but feel that they can be corrected with bills passed by the legislature.
Perhaps some of the issues could be so corrected, but the actual language of a voter-approved amendment to the AZ Constitution cannot be touched by the legislature. Period.
The state's Republicans like to gripe about Arizona's inclusion on the list of states subject to "preclearance," but moves like this only serve to ensure that Arizona will remain on the list for the foreseeable future.
Updates as more info becomes available...
Monday, September 20, 2010
Brewer campaign script: Plan A - Lie; Plan B - Run and Hide. Plan C: When Plan B stops working, return to Plan A.
Early this year, Jan Brewer and her quest for an elected term as governor were in trouble.
Deep-pocketed Republican challengers were swamping her in her primary race, and early polling had Terry Goddard defeating her in the general election.
Then Russell Pearce's SB1070 came along, and Brewer's campaign righted itself with Plan A.
She focused on selling that nativist measure to the Republican base, using stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and outright lies.
The bill, and her successinciting "energizing" her base forced most of the other R gubernatorial candidates to withdraw from the race.
In addition, polls taken shortly after the primary showed her with a comfortable (~20%) lead over the Democratic nominee for governor, Terry Goddard.
Then came The Debate.
After the brain freeze that will never go away, the grammatical gaffes ("we has did"), and the frantic retreat from the media after the debate, her handlers refused to allow her anywhere near a situation that isn't totally in their control.
That marked the beginning of Plan B.
Run and hide Brewer and her weaknesses until November, and everybody would keep their jobs (and the revenue streams for theirreal "former" employers).
Then came word on Monday of new polling that shows Goddard has seriously closed on Brewer.
It's become obvious, even to those who have their heads buried in the sand at the bottom of the deepest underground bunker in the state (which has been made to look a *lot* like the 9th floor of the Executive Tower), that running and hiding is no longer a viable plan.
Instead of adapting to the changed circumstances (something that might just involve cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery), they've chosen to go back to Plan A.
Stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and lies.
From an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, via Huffington Post -
We'll know in November if her ploy is effective.
Later...
Deep-pocketed Republican challengers were swamping her in her primary race, and early polling had Terry Goddard defeating her in the general election.
Then Russell Pearce's SB1070 came along, and Brewer's campaign righted itself with Plan A.
She focused on selling that nativist measure to the Republican base, using stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and outright lies.
The bill, and her success
In addition, polls taken shortly after the primary showed her with a comfortable (~20%) lead over the Democratic nominee for governor, Terry Goddard.
Then came The Debate.
After the brain freeze that will never go away, the grammatical gaffes ("we has did"), and the frantic retreat from the media after the debate, her handlers refused to allow her anywhere near a situation that isn't totally in their control.
That marked the beginning of Plan B.
Run and hide Brewer and her weaknesses until November, and everybody would keep their jobs (and the revenue streams for their
Then came word on Monday of new polling that shows Goddard has seriously closed on Brewer.
It's become obvious, even to those who have their heads buried in the sand at the bottom of the deepest underground bunker in the state (which has been made to look a *lot* like the 9th floor of the Executive Tower), that running and hiding is no longer a viable plan.
Instead of adapting to the changed circumstances (something that might just involve cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery), they've chosen to go back to Plan A.
Stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and lies.
From an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, via Huffington Post -
RAMOS: But you understand people were upset that you said that the majority of undocumented immigrants were drug mules when in reality they are not. The majority are not.If The Debate was Brewer's "Brain Fart" moment, this could well be her "doubling down on a pair of 8s when Goddard is showing a 10" moment.
BREWER: Well, if you know; if you are coming across with the drug cartels, and you're hauling drugs, then you are. And they're probably not doing it willingly; they are probably not doing it willingly.
RAMOS: Do you still believe the majority are drug mules? The majority of undocumented immigrants are bringing drugs to this country?
BREWER: I think that it has increased. I think that it has increased.
We'll know in November if her ploy is effective.
Later...
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Fact Checking the Arizona Republic
Wherein I have the opportunity to correct one (or more) career journalists on the facts...
One of the advantages of doing this is that I've learned a *lot* about the technical aspects of Arizona politics. Probably not as much as if I had been a student in one of Harry Mitchell's civics classes at Tempe High, but I've learned enough to actually help out Capitol tour guides on at least one occasion at the legislature.
So my eyebrows raised a little on Sunday when I read this passage from the Arizona Republic's Political Insider column -
Even if Prop. 111 passes (far from guaranteed) and survives some inevitable legal challenges (not likely, but more on that tomorrow or Tuesday after I make some phone calls), it won't go into effect until the 2014 cycle.
At that point, if Bennett wins this year, he'll be termed-out as Secretary of State and will be barred from running for the newly-renamed office.
There *are* a couple of scenarios where Bennett could run for a possible Lt. Governorship.
1. He could lose this year (I like this one - vote Deschene!) and choose to run for it in 2014.
2. He could win this year, serve out the term, take a full term off to reset the term limits clock, and then run for the office again in 2018.
These two scenarios seem highly unlikely. Regardless of this year's results in the SOS race, if Bennett runs for a statewide office in 2014, it will probably be for Governor.
- If Terry Goddard wins the November election for Governor, look for Bennett, Dean Martin, and one or two other R "big names" to look at challenging him in 2014.
- If Jan Brewer wins in November, she'll be termed-out in 2014 and the race will be for an open seat, and again, Bennett would be in the mix of Rs looking at the seat.
Adding to that is the fact that Bennett is both young enough (~50) and far enough up in Arizona's political food chain that he is still on the "up or out" political trajectory. Taking a term off and then running for an office he has already held would be seen as the end of the "ascendancy" portion of his career and serve to reduce his credibility as a candidate overall.
Put it all together and neither Bennett nor Deschene (whichever one wins in November) will be referred to as "Lieutenant Governor" after the election, and Bennett will likely never run for that particular office in the event Prop. 111 passes the voters.
More on Prop. 111 later this week...
One of the advantages of doing this is that I've learned a *lot* about the technical aspects of Arizona politics. Probably not as much as if I had been a student in one of Harry Mitchell's civics classes at Tempe High, but I've learned enough to actually help out Capitol tour guides on at least one occasion at the legislature.
So my eyebrows raised a little on Sunday when I read this passage from the Arizona Republic's Political Insider column -
Brewer may not have a second in command, but Secretary of State Ken Bennett seems to think he is capable of filling the job.Ummm...not-so-minor problem with that last paragraph - if Bennett wins in November, it's highly unlikely that anyone will *ever* refer to him as "Lt. Gov. Bennett."
The "No. 2 spot," as Bennett described his office this week, would get a more powerful title if voters pass Proposition 111. The Nov. 2 ballot measure would essentially eliminate the office of secretary of state, transferring its duties to a newly created lieutenant-governor position.
Bennett said he won't take a stance on propositions that are under his watch as Arizona's current secretary of state, but he supports any "concept" that would make it clear that a vote for secretary of state could be a de facto vote for governor.
During an interview on Wednesday with The Arizona Republic's Editorial Board, Bennett said voters need a reminder that the position he holds is first in line to take over if Arizona's governor dies, resigns or, say, is recruited by the president to be the head of U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
When Brewer, Arizona's former secretary of state, took over for Janet Napolitano, Brewer appointed Bennett to her old job. Now, he is asking voters to elect him as secretary of state over challenger Chris Deschene, D-Window Rock. If he wins, and Prop. 111 passes, voters will be calling him Lt. Gov. Bennett.
Even if Prop. 111 passes (far from guaranteed) and survives some inevitable legal challenges (not likely, but more on that tomorrow or Tuesday after I make some phone calls), it won't go into effect until the 2014 cycle.
At that point, if Bennett wins this year, he'll be termed-out as Secretary of State and will be barred from running for the newly-renamed office.
There *are* a couple of scenarios where Bennett could run for a possible Lt. Governorship.
1. He could lose this year (I like this one - vote Deschene!) and choose to run for it in 2014.
2. He could win this year, serve out the term, take a full term off to reset the term limits clock, and then run for the office again in 2018.
These two scenarios seem highly unlikely. Regardless of this year's results in the SOS race, if Bennett runs for a statewide office in 2014, it will probably be for Governor.
- If Terry Goddard wins the November election for Governor, look for Bennett, Dean Martin, and one or two other R "big names" to look at challenging him in 2014.
- If Jan Brewer wins in November, she'll be termed-out in 2014 and the race will be for an open seat, and again, Bennett would be in the mix of Rs looking at the seat.
Adding to that is the fact that Bennett is both young enough (~50) and far enough up in Arizona's political food chain that he is still on the "up or out" political trajectory. Taking a term off and then running for an office he has already held would be seen as the end of the "ascendancy" portion of his career and serve to reduce his credibility as a candidate overall.
Put it all together and neither Bennett nor Deschene (whichever one wins in November) will be referred to as "Lieutenant Governor" after the election, and Bennett will likely never run for that particular office in the event Prop. 111 passes the voters.
More on Prop. 111 later this week...
Arizona's descent in "Third World" social and economic status continues
Let's see, after generations of Republican control of the legislature...
- Arizona has one of the most overcrowded and underfunded education systems in the country (more here and here)...
- Arizona has a literacy rate below the U.S. national average...which is already below that of places like Samoa, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan...
- Arizona now has the 2nd highest percentage of its population living in poverty in the United States...but hey, at least we're ahead of Mississippi!...
- Arizona has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S...
On top of all this (and more. I could have done this for hours) comes the latest news of the state's epic failure of leadership.
From an Arizona Republic article -
No wonder Jan Brewer is running only on her "demonize Mexicans" campaign plank and Republicans all over the state are running away from direct debates with any ballot opponents.
BTW - While Arizona *is* ahead of Mississippi in terms of poverty rate, Mississippi is ahead of AZ in terms of credit rating.
- Arizona has one of the most overcrowded and underfunded education systems in the country (more here and here)...
- Arizona has a literacy rate below the U.S. national average...which is already below that of places like Samoa, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan...
- Arizona now has the 2nd highest percentage of its population living in poverty in the United States...but hey, at least we're ahead of Mississippi!...
- Arizona has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S...
On top of all this (and more. I could have done this for hours) comes the latest news of the state's epic failure of leadership.
From an Arizona Republic article -
Worries about Arizona's economic future led a financial-services company this month to downgrade the state's debt rating, which could make it more expensive for the government to borrow money.Hmmm... the state's "economic weakness, budget deficit" and the accounting sleight-of-hand used to "balance" the budget have led to skeptical views of the state's ability to meet its financial obligations?
Moody's Investors Service lowered the state's debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, citing the state's economic weakness, budget deficit and reliance on non-recurring revenue sources such as selling off and leasing back state buildings.
No wonder Jan Brewer is running only on her "demonize Mexicans" campaign plank and Republicans all over the state are running away from direct debates with any ballot opponents.
BTW - While Arizona *is* ahead of Mississippi in terms of poverty rate, Mississippi is ahead of AZ in terms of credit rating.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Jan Brewer and failed leadership: This week's lession
Jan Brewer has staked out "border security" and immigration as her signature issue during her campaign for a full term as governor of Arizona, hence her now-infamous signing of SB1070.
She hasn't anything substantial on the matter (even SB1070 turns out to have been somewhat unconstitutional), but her speeches on the subject have been paragons of bluster and bloviating, which was likely the real purpose of the whole "sign SB1070"/"embrace the nativists" two-step.
And when she has the chance to engage is something a little more substantial than speeches as local Republican organizations, well, she doesn't.
From the Arizona Republic -
Nope. This conference was originally scheduled to take place in Arizona. Some of the Mexican governors who were scheduled to be in Arizona expressed objections to SB1070 and were going to boycott the conference. Brewer objected to their objections and cancelled the conference.
And now that they are holding it anyway, she refuses to attend, even to discuss economic issues, something that the [alleged] leader of the 2nd-poorest state in the nation should pay attention to.
Or would, if she had any "leader" in her personality.
She hasn't anything substantial on the matter (even SB1070 turns out to have been somewhat unconstitutional), but her speeches on the subject have been paragons of bluster and bloviating, which was likely the real purpose of the whole "sign SB1070"/"embrace the nativists" two-step.
And when she has the chance to engage is something a little more substantial than speeches as local Republican organizations, well, she doesn't.
From the Arizona Republic -
Brewer not at U.S, Mexico governors meetingContrary to the rumor circulating around the internet (a rumor that I may be starting right now :) ), she didn't pass on the conference because New Mexico has border checkpoints* to keep the riff raff out. She didn't want to be embarrassed when she failed the literacy test by failing to correctly spell "Albuquerque."
SANTA FE, N.M. - U.S. and Mexican border governors are gathering in Santa Fe to focus on border security, economic development and energy.
Gov. Bill Richardson and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are co-hosting the event scheduled to begin Sunday.
{snip}
The governors of Arizona and Texas have said they will not attend.
Nope. This conference was originally scheduled to take place in Arizona. Some of the Mexican governors who were scheduled to be in Arizona expressed objections to SB1070 and were going to boycott the conference. Brewer objected to their objections and cancelled the conference.
And now that they are holding it anyway, she refuses to attend, even to discuss economic issues, something that the [alleged] leader of the 2nd-poorest state in the nation should pay attention to.
Or would, if she had any "leader" in her personality.
Debates for the week of September 20, 2010
Most info from the website of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
Statewide candidates:
Secretary of State
September 22, 2010
7:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Televised on KAET
Horizon Channel 8
Legislative candidates:
LD18
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 PM
Phoenix Mesa Marriott Hotel
200 N Centennial Way
Mesa, AZ 85201
LD3
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
6:00 PM
Bullhead Area Chamber of Commerce Conference Center
1251 Highway 95
Bullhead City, AZ 86429
LD8
September 21, 2010
6:30 PM
Kerr Cultural Center
6110 N Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
LD2
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
6:00 PM
Woodlands Radisson Hotel
1175 W Route 66
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
LD7
Thursday, September 23, 2010
6:00 PM
Appaloosa Library
City of Scottsdale
7377 E Silverstone Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Scottsdale City Council candidate forum (complete community meeting notice here):
Brown Avenue Merchants City Council Debates
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Later...
Statewide candidates:
Secretary of State
September 22, 2010
7:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Televised on KAET
Horizon Channel 8
Legislative candidates:
LD18
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 PM
Phoenix Mesa Marriott Hotel
200 N Centennial Way
Mesa, AZ 85201
LD3
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
6:00 PM
Bullhead Area Chamber of Commerce Conference Center
1251 Highway 95
Bullhead City, AZ 86429
LD8
September 21, 2010
6:30 PM
Kerr Cultural Center
6110 N Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
LD2
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
6:00 PM
Woodlands Radisson Hotel
1175 W Route 66
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
LD7
Thursday, September 23, 2010
6:00 PM
Appaloosa Library
City of Scottsdale
7377 E Silverstone Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Scottsdale City Council candidate forum (complete community meeting notice here):
Brown Avenue Merchants City Council Debates
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Later...
Friday, September 17, 2010
Ballot updates: Arizona and Maricopa County
Statewide and legislative:
Withdrawals -
Nothing significant that hasn't already been covered, but it's still nice to visit the Secretary of State's page listing withdrawn candidates and see the name of Republican Steve May and seven of the faux-Greens that he helped to scam their way onto the ballot.
The SOS' page listing all official write-in candidates for statewide and legislative candidates is here.
Running unopposed in the general election:
Democrat Jack Jackson Jr., State Senate, LD2
Democrat Steve Gallardo, State Senate, LD13
Democrat Robert Meza, State Senate, LD14
Democrat Leah Landrum, State Senate, LD16
Republican John McComish, State Senate, LD20
Republican Steve Yarbrough, State Senate, LD21
Republican Andy Biggs, State Senate, LD22
Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, State Senate, LD27 (2 "write-ins" have declared for the race)
Democrat Linda Lopez, State Senate, LD29
Republicans Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain, State House, LD3
Democrats Richard Miranda and Anna Tovar, State House, LD13
Democrats Chad Campbell and Debbie McCune-Davis, State House, LD14
Republicans Eddie Farnsworth and Steve Urie, State House, LD22
In addition to those candidates who are completely unopposed on November's ballot, a few others face only opponents from "minor" party candidates (i.e. - Libertarians and Greens):
Republican Rich Crandall, State Senate, LD19 - sole opposition is a Libertarian
Democrats Tom Chabin and Albert Hale, State House, LD2 - one Libertarian is on the ballot
Republicans Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard, State House, LD21 - one Green is on the ballot
Maricopa County:
Non-partisan general election candidate listing here.
Withdrawn from the race for the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAWCD) -
Joseph Hobbs
Considered elected due to lack of opposition -
Susan Gerard and Elbert Bicknell, Districts 3 and 4 of the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System
Ruth Coleman, Jeff Gerber, and Edward Hurley of the Chandler County Island Fire District
Joseph Cantelme, Randy Hancock, and Brian Moore of the Daisy Mountain Fire District
Frank Haas and Dwight Music of the Harquahala Valley Fire District
Fern Ward of the Laveen Fire District
Clarence Hein and Burdena Pasenelli of the Rio Verde Fire District
David Calverley, Wayne Morrow, and Peter Reiss of the Scottsdale County Island Fire District
William Hamel and Jack Meyer of the Sun City West Fire District
Diane Price and Michael Sellers of the Sun Lakes Fire District
Victor Zaharchenko of the Tempe County Island Fire District
No candidates for: Aguila and Wickenburg Volunteer Fire Districts.
In addition, many of the above-listed districts didn't have a sufficient number of candidates to fill out their boards, so there may be write-ins or after-election appointments to fill out the district boards.
In partisan races -
Facing token opposition:
Republican Bill Montgomery faces only a Libertarian in his race to serve out the last two years of failed AG candidate Andrew Thomas' unexpired term as Maricopa County Attorney
Republican Mark Anderson faces only a Libertarian in his race for West Mesa Justice of the Peace
Republican Dan Ryan faces an independent write-in candidate in his race for McDowell Mountain Constable
Unopposed:
Democrat Joe Guzman, Justice of the Peace, Agua Fria
Republican Phillip Woolbright, Justice of the Peace, Arrowhead
Democrat Armando Gandarilla, Justice of the Peace, Downtown
Republican Mark Chiles, Justice of the Peace, East Mesa
Democrat C. Steven McMurry, Justice of the Peace, Encanto
Republican Chris Mueller, Justice of the Peace, Hassayampa
Democrat J.B. Getzwiller, Justice of the Peace, Ironwood
Republican Gary Handley, Justice of the Peace, Manistee
Republican Michael Reagan, Justice of the Peace, McDowell Mountain
Republican Gerald Williams, Justice of the Peace, North Valley
Democrat Rachel Torres Carrillo, Justice of the Peace, West McDowell
Democrat Alfredo Gamez, Constable, Agua Fria
Republican Ron Myers, Constable, Arrowhead
Republican William Taylor, Constable, East Mesa
Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell, Constable, Encanto
Republican Miles Keegan, Constable, Hassayampa
Republican Billy Spurlock, Constable, Ironwood
Republican Lennie McCloskey, Constable, Manistee
Republican Philip Hazlett, Constable, North Valley
Republican James Kevin Jones, Constable, San Marcos
Democrat Ben Miranda, Constable, South Mountain
Republican Joe Arredondo, Constable, University Lakes
Democrat Rudy Santa Cruz, Constable, West McDowell
Republican Fred Arnett, Constable, West Mesa
Updates on the actual races as the general election grows nearer...
Withdrawals -
Nothing significant that hasn't already been covered, but it's still nice to visit the Secretary of State's page listing withdrawn candidates and see the name of Republican Steve May and seven of the faux-Greens that he helped to scam their way onto the ballot.
The SOS' page listing all official write-in candidates for statewide and legislative candidates is here.
Running unopposed in the general election:
Democrat Jack Jackson Jr., State Senate, LD2
Democrat Steve Gallardo, State Senate, LD13
Democrat Robert Meza, State Senate, LD14
Democrat Leah Landrum, State Senate, LD16
Republican John McComish, State Senate, LD20
Republican Steve Yarbrough, State Senate, LD21
Republican Andy Biggs, State Senate, LD22
Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, State Senate, LD27 (2 "write-ins" have declared for the race)
Democrat Linda Lopez, State Senate, LD29
Republicans Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain, State House, LD3
Democrats Richard Miranda and Anna Tovar, State House, LD13
Democrats Chad Campbell and Debbie McCune-Davis, State House, LD14
Republicans Eddie Farnsworth and Steve Urie, State House, LD22
In addition to those candidates who are completely unopposed on November's ballot, a few others face only opponents from "minor" party candidates (i.e. - Libertarians and Greens):
Republican Rich Crandall, State Senate, LD19 - sole opposition is a Libertarian
Democrats Tom Chabin and Albert Hale, State House, LD2 - one Libertarian is on the ballot
Republicans Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard, State House, LD21 - one Green is on the ballot
Maricopa County:
Non-partisan general election candidate listing here.
Withdrawn from the race for the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAWCD) -
Joseph Hobbs
Considered elected due to lack of opposition -
Susan Gerard and Elbert Bicknell, Districts 3 and 4 of the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System
Ruth Coleman, Jeff Gerber, and Edward Hurley of the Chandler County Island Fire District
Joseph Cantelme, Randy Hancock, and Brian Moore of the Daisy Mountain Fire District
Frank Haas and Dwight Music of the Harquahala Valley Fire District
Fern Ward of the Laveen Fire District
Clarence Hein and Burdena Pasenelli of the Rio Verde Fire District
David Calverley, Wayne Morrow, and Peter Reiss of the Scottsdale County Island Fire District
William Hamel and Jack Meyer of the Sun City West Fire District
Diane Price and Michael Sellers of the Sun Lakes Fire District
Victor Zaharchenko of the Tempe County Island Fire District
No candidates for: Aguila and Wickenburg Volunteer Fire Districts.
In addition, many of the above-listed districts didn't have a sufficient number of candidates to fill out their boards, so there may be write-ins or after-election appointments to fill out the district boards.
In partisan races -
Facing token opposition:
Republican Bill Montgomery faces only a Libertarian in his race to serve out the last two years of failed AG candidate Andrew Thomas' unexpired term as Maricopa County Attorney
Republican Mark Anderson faces only a Libertarian in his race for West Mesa Justice of the Peace
Republican Dan Ryan faces an independent write-in candidate in his race for McDowell Mountain Constable
Unopposed:
Democrat Joe Guzman, Justice of the Peace, Agua Fria
Republican Phillip Woolbright, Justice of the Peace, Arrowhead
Democrat Armando Gandarilla, Justice of the Peace, Downtown
Republican Mark Chiles, Justice of the Peace, East Mesa
Democrat C. Steven McMurry, Justice of the Peace, Encanto
Republican Chris Mueller, Justice of the Peace, Hassayampa
Democrat J.B. Getzwiller, Justice of the Peace, Ironwood
Republican Gary Handley, Justice of the Peace, Manistee
Republican Michael Reagan, Justice of the Peace, McDowell Mountain
Republican Gerald Williams, Justice of the Peace, North Valley
Democrat Rachel Torres Carrillo, Justice of the Peace, West McDowell
Democrat Alfredo Gamez, Constable, Agua Fria
Republican Ron Myers, Constable, Arrowhead
Republican William Taylor, Constable, East Mesa
Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell, Constable, Encanto
Republican Miles Keegan, Constable, Hassayampa
Republican Billy Spurlock, Constable, Ironwood
Republican Lennie McCloskey, Constable, Manistee
Republican Philip Hazlett, Constable, North Valley
Republican James Kevin Jones, Constable, San Marcos
Democrat Ben Miranda, Constable, South Mountain
Republican Joe Arredondo, Constable, University Lakes
Democrat Rudy Santa Cruz, Constable, West McDowell
Republican Fred Arnett, Constable, West Mesa
Updates on the actual races as the general election grows nearer...
Latest poll: Arizonans dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's finances
ASU's Morrison Institute of Public Policy has released the results of a poll showing that a solid majority, one that crosses all partisan lines, is dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's budget.
In the poll, 61% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 68% overall disapproved or strongly disapproved of the job that the Arizona legislature has done with the state's budget.
Other highlights included:
66% (63% R, 71% D, and 62% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the state Legislature has the wrong priorities."
52% (73% R, 29% D, and 49% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the governor has provided good leadership in formulating state public policy."
74% (61% R, 83% D and 75% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "There is too much partisan conflict at the Arizona State Capitol."
67% (59% R, 71% D, and 70% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I would like to see more moderate candidates elected to public office."
Generally speaking, the results cited above (and not cited, due to space constraints here) favor Democrats in Arizona (though Terry Goddard is going to have to do better than split independents down the middle to have a chance to win the race for governor.)
There was one result that best illustrates the possible problem that faces Republicans this fall -
Only 36% (45% R, 20% D, and 38% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I am generally statisfied with the way things are going in Arizona state government."
I expected the low Democratic number on that one, but less than 1/2 of Republican respondents approved of the job that the incumbent majority has done on down on West Washington????
Maybe R candidates and officials should expand their sphere of constituent contact beyond local LD meetings and country club restaurants and golf courses (that's probably good advice in general, including for Democrats.)
No guarantees here, but numbers like those presented in the poll, if more than remotely accurate, speak to the possibility of Arizona running counter to the national trend of 2010 being a down year for Democrats.
There was also one seriously disappointing surprise in the poll -
45% (42% R, 50% D, and 44% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "In times of budget crisis, the Legislature should be able to use funds protected by voter ballots."
HALF of Democrats trust the lege to appropriately handle funds from things like First Things First in times of "budget crisis"?? A larger percentage than even the Republicans?
I'll take this to mean that at least half of all Democrats don't read this blog, or Blog for Arizona, or Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, or Democratic Diva, or Dry Heat Democrat, or....
Anyway, more poll info can be found here and here.
A Cronkite News Service story on the poll, via the Arizona Capitol Times, is here.
In the poll, 61% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 68% overall disapproved or strongly disapproved of the job that the Arizona legislature has done with the state's budget.
Other highlights included:
66% (63% R, 71% D, and 62% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the state Legislature has the wrong priorities."
52% (73% R, 29% D, and 49% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the governor has provided good leadership in formulating state public policy."
74% (61% R, 83% D and 75% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "There is too much partisan conflict at the Arizona State Capitol."
67% (59% R, 71% D, and 70% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I would like to see more moderate candidates elected to public office."
Generally speaking, the results cited above (and not cited, due to space constraints here) favor Democrats in Arizona (though Terry Goddard is going to have to do better than split independents down the middle to have a chance to win the race for governor.)
There was one result that best illustrates the possible problem that faces Republicans this fall -
Only 36% (45% R, 20% D, and 38% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I am generally statisfied with the way things are going in Arizona state government."
I expected the low Democratic number on that one, but less than 1/2 of Republican respondents approved of the job that the incumbent majority has done on down on West Washington????
Maybe R candidates and officials should expand their sphere of constituent contact beyond local LD meetings and country club restaurants and golf courses (that's probably good advice in general, including for Democrats.)
No guarantees here, but numbers like those presented in the poll, if more than remotely accurate, speak to the possibility of Arizona running counter to the national trend of 2010 being a down year for Democrats.
There was also one seriously disappointing surprise in the poll -
45% (42% R, 50% D, and 44% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "In times of budget crisis, the Legislature should be able to use funds protected by voter ballots."
HALF of Democrats trust the lege to appropriately handle funds from things like First Things First in times of "budget crisis"?? A larger percentage than even the Republicans?
I'll take this to mean that at least half of all Democrats don't read this blog, or Blog for Arizona, or Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, or Democratic Diva, or Dry Heat Democrat, or....
Anyway, more poll info can be found here and here.
A Cronkite News Service story on the poll, via the Arizona Capitol Times, is here.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Congressman Harry Mitchell - "Advancing Research"
I know that in the last post, I mentioned that I don't normally post press releases verbatim, before doing so. I'm doing it again, but letters from Congressman Harry Mitchell are something that I've always made an exception for.
From an email -
From an email -
Degenerative diseases are devastating. We all have someone in our lives who suffers from a chronic and potentially life-threatening disease like Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, cancer or even diabetes. These relationships in my own life have pushed me to strongly support cutting-edge medical research so that we can discover treatments for the millions of Americans who suffer from a wide array of diseases and conditions.Later...
One of the first things I did after taking office in 2007 was take to the floor of the House and urge my colleagues to overturn the stem cell research ban. Congress rarely gets an opportunity to offer hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from these diseases; however, last year we were given the opportunity to invest in science and ethical research. On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order to allow federal funding of human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research. I thought this was a great step in the right direction because many scientists believe embryonic stem cells hold greater promise than adult stem cells for further scientific breakthroughs which will advance research on many devastating diseases.
Recently, the issue of stem cell research has been reintroduced to the national discussion as a result of a temporary injunction that was placed on federal stem cell research by a federal court in August.
Although the injunction has since been lifted by a higher federal court, I have joined on as a cosponsor to the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2009, H.R. 4808. This bill would expand the lot of available stem cells for research by codifying that federal research projects may use stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived. I am proud to be a supporter of this bill, and will continue to strongly support stem cell research to help discover treatments for a wide array of diseases and conditions.
As always, I look forward to being able to provide you with regular updates and continue our dialogue in support of advancing important medical research.
Sincerely,
Harry
Ben Quayle's Grueling Daily Campaign Schedule
I don't normally publish press releases verbatim, and Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion already has this one up, but it made me laugh.
And that makes it worth a post of its own.
From an ADP press release, Ben Quayle's daily schedule -
There's nothing I can add. I'm a wiseass, but this one is out-of-my-class funny. Probably because it's closer to the truth than the Quayle camp would care to admit...
And that makes it worth a post of its own.
From an ADP press release, Ben Quayle's daily schedule -
Ben Quayle - Daily Campaign Schedule
10:00 – 10:30 AM: Wake-up, get ready
Notes: Out of Frosted Flakes, order the maid to go buy more -- this time with a prize!
10:30 – 11:00 AM: Web surfing time
Notes: Use new password Nik gave me to get around Dad’s cybersecurity filters
11:00 – 11:15 AM: Fundraising meeting with Dad
Reminder: Don’t ask questions. Dad gets upset.
11:15 -11:30 AM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: I’m really very busy
11:30 AM – 12:30 PM: Gym
Reminder: Upper body, focus on abs
12:30 – 1:00 PM: Shower
Reminder: Wear the power suit that has the shoulder pads. Gotta look grown-up.
1:00 – 2:00 PM: Lunch – Stingray Sushi
Notes: Trainer says soy paper has fewer carbs
2:00 – 2:05 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: It still feels like I’m way busy
2:05 – 2:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Arizona 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about those cities north and west of Scottsdale.
2:30 – 2:45 PM: Tynwald Capital
Reminder: Make sure Dad’s deposit into company went through so I can collect paycheck
3:00 – 4:00 PM: Play with Louie the Dog. My favorite campaign expenditure!
4:00 – 4:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Congress 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about D.C. club scene. It better not be lame!
4:30 -5:00 PM: Check in with Dad on fundraising
Reminder: Don’t tell Dad I plan to go out tonight
5:00 – 5:02 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: Dude, where does the time go?
5:15 – 6:15 PM: Nap
6:30 – 8:00 PM: Invite bros over to party (keep it cool. no cops)
Notes: Show them new drinking game I invented. Cross between Flip Cup and Beer Pong – Super Beer Flip Cup Pong!
8:00 – 9:30 PM: Dinner at Barcelona
10:00 – 11:30 PM: Pre-club partying
Notes: Don't post any photos to Facebook this time!
11:30 PM – 2:00 AM: Hit the Scottsdale clubs
Notes: Dad’s folks following me, can’t let them catch me out like last time. Call for black Town Car to drive me home.
2:30 AM: Maid tucks me in
Notes: Tomorrow, I’ll think some more about debating. LOL!!!
There's nothing I can add. I'm a wiseass, but this one is out-of-my-class funny. Probably because it's closer to the truth than the Quayle camp would care to admit...
David Schweikert has a remarkably low opinion of AZRep reporters
...Of course, he probably has an even lower opinion of wiseass bloggers. :)
From YouTube -
I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety. Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.
Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...
From YouTube -
I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety. Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.
Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...
The Three Amigos vote against American workers...yet again
They may be poor representatives of the people of their districts, their state, and their country, but dammit, *nobody* can claim that they are inconsistent about it. They almost always vote against the best interests of their constituents.
On Wednesday, Arizona's Three Amigos, better known as Congressmen Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, and John Shadegg (Rs - Whichever Corporation Is Ponying Up The Campaign Cash That Week) voted as a bloc against H.R.2039, the Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009.
The bill simply amends the original Buy American Act by extending its provisions "to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate..."
The Buy American Act requires that when purchasing materials for its use, the government give preference to American-made items.
Extending the provisions of that act to cover materials purchased by and for the chambers of Congress may not have a huge direct economic benefit for American workers (Congress may spend a lot of money on its operations, but it's less than a drop in the bucket of the entire economy), but the move is significant as a symbol of Congress' efforts to address the plight of American workers.
Hence the united opposition of Franks, Flake, and Shadegg.
Shadegg isn't running for reelection (but look for his name to pop up in two years if Jon Kyl doesn't run for another term in the Senate), but the other two are, and are facing strong Democratic opponents.
John Thrasher, the career teacher challenging Franks in CD2, has already sent out a press release highlighting the anti-American worker vote.
Rebecca Schneider, challenging Flake in CD6, has a page on her website highlighting Flake's unwavering "no" votes against anything that would help his district, state, or country.
They can use your help in defeating these stalwarts of the Party of NO - please contribute to John Thrasher's campaign here and to Rebecca Schneider's campaign here.
Later!
On Wednesday, Arizona's Three Amigos, better known as Congressmen Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, and John Shadegg (Rs - Whichever Corporation Is Ponying Up The Campaign Cash That Week) voted as a bloc against H.R.2039, the Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009.
The bill simply amends the original Buy American Act by extending its provisions "to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate..."
The Buy American Act requires that when purchasing materials for its use, the government give preference to American-made items.
Extending the provisions of that act to cover materials purchased by and for the chambers of Congress may not have a huge direct economic benefit for American workers (Congress may spend a lot of money on its operations, but it's less than a drop in the bucket of the entire economy), but the move is significant as a symbol of Congress' efforts to address the plight of American workers.
Hence the united opposition of Franks, Flake, and Shadegg.
Shadegg isn't running for reelection (but look for his name to pop up in two years if Jon Kyl doesn't run for another term in the Senate), but the other two are, and are facing strong Democratic opponents.
John Thrasher, the career teacher challenging Franks in CD2, has already sent out a press release highlighting the anti-American worker vote.
Rebecca Schneider, challenging Flake in CD6, has a page on her website highlighting Flake's unwavering "no" votes against anything that would help his district, state, or country.
They can use your help in defeating these stalwarts of the Party of NO - please contribute to John Thrasher's campaign here and to Rebecca Schneider's campaign here.
Later!
New investigation into MCSO "misconduct and mismanagement"
Something tells me that perhaps someone feels that the feds are getting close...
In what is probably the first in a string of public occurrences of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio throwing someone under the PR bus, a memo written by one of his senior aides accusing another senior aide of "misconduct and mismanagement" was made public yesterday.
From the Arizona Republic -
All this comes on this week's $154K fine for Arpaio's illegal "in kind" contribution to the recent County Attorney campaign of another political ally, Bill Montgomery. Arpaio funded a "hit piece" against Rick Romley, a long-time adversary and the other candidate for Maricopa County Attorney.
Note: some long-time or Arizona-based readers may recognize the name "Joel Fox." Fox was the front man/fall guy in the one of the most brazen and tawdry illegal campaign finance schemes ever associated with Arizona politics.
Later...
In what is probably the first in a string of public occurrences of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio throwing someone under the PR bus, a memo written by one of his senior aides accusing another senior aide of "misconduct and mismanagement" was made public yesterday.
From the Arizona Republic -
A top aide to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has requested an investigation of the sheriff's second-in-command, Chief Deputy David Hendershott, and two of his allies, signaling growing concern among the sheriff's top hierarchy about the agency's management.When describing the relationship between Arpaio and Babeu, "close political ally" is an understatement. In many ways, Babeu could be best described as an "Arpaio in training." I expect that his involvement with the case may actually be less to protect Black and Fox than to make sure any "investigation" doesn't go beyond those two.
A memo written by Deputy Chief Frank Munnell and recently delivered to Arpaio alleges years of misconduct and mismanagement by Hendershott, who has directed day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office since 2008 and has been in the department's top echelon since the mid-1990s.
[snip}
Munnell asked Arpaio to place Hendershott and two of his close allies, Deputy Chief Larry Black and Capt. Joel Fox, on administrative leave pending an independent investigation by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Instead, Arpaio confirmed Wednesday, the sheriff sent the investigation to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a close political ally.
"I decide who to send investigations to if it's necessary," Arpaio said, declining to comment further on the allegations. "This has been given by me to another agency. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss it."
All this comes on this week's $154K fine for Arpaio's illegal "in kind" contribution to the recent County Attorney campaign of another political ally, Bill Montgomery. Arpaio funded a "hit piece" against Rick Romley, a long-time adversary and the other candidate for Maricopa County Attorney.
Note: some long-time or Arizona-based readers may recognize the name "Joel Fox." Fox was the front man/fall guy in the one of the most brazen and tawdry illegal campaign finance schemes ever associated with Arizona politics.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)