Campaign and committees update

...Damn!  Stop paying attention to committee formations after the deadline for filing for August's primary election and you can miss some developments involving familiar names.  I know I did.


Perused the Maricopa County Recorder's list of candidates for offices that go directly to the November ballot, and a few names ring a bell.  Loudly.

- Terry Goddard, former AZ Attorney General and the Democratic nominee for governor in 2010, is running for a spot on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), better known as the governing board of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).  They oversee the delivery of Arizona's share of water from the Colorado River to central and southern Arizona.

- Also running for CAWCD:  Brett Mecum.  The scandal-plagued former executive director of the AZGOP (speeding tickets, stalking women, etc.) was last seen "helping" southern AZ's favorite bully, State Sen. Frank Antenori, run for Congress.  Apparently, that campaign crashed and burned didn't work out as well as Antenori hoped (OK, he got his butt kicked).

- Jean McGrath.  She is currently on the board, but she is waging a primary challenge against Max Wilson for the District 4 seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  Given that she has roughly 1/10 of the money for her campaign that Wilson has, maybe she's read the writing on the wall and set her sights a little lower.

- Because of the late date of the removal of Phillip Woolbright from the office of Arrowhead Justice of the Peace, the candidates to replace him have to run as write-ins.  There are currently six registered candidates - Debra Boehlke, Melanie Deforest, David Hickman, Francisco Meneses, Patrick Montgomery, and George Mothershed.

Don't know much about any of them, but there was a "Francisco Meneses Jr." who was a candidate for JP in the Maryvale Precinct who withdrew from that race after submitting his nominating petitions  Hmmm...

...Sasha Glassman, wife of 2010 Democratic nominee for US Senate Rodney Glassman, is running for a seat on the Madison Elementary SD.  OK - four candidates for four seats - she's going to win.

...Don Hawker, perhaps the one person in Arizona who can make the folks at the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy seem reasonable on the right of women to control their own bodies (he blames everything that he considers "bad" in America, and that is a very long list, on his God's displeasure with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision) is running for a seat on the board of the Tempe Union High School District.  He ran for the lege from Tempe in 2010, and got thumped in a Republican wave year.  Three seats, five candidates; he may find a way to come in sixth.

- In a quick update to a post I wrote on the lack of school board candidates, by Wednesday's filing deadline, 207 people had filed for 170 seats up for election.  However, that number means that many of the seats will be uncontested, or at least under-contested (i.e. - fewer than two candidates for each of the seats on the ballot).

For example...

...only two candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Agua Fria SD board.

...only four candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Mesa Unified board.  Meaning that there is a 3/4 chance that winger Jerry Walker will be given access to the futures of Mesa's schoolchildren.

Later...

Democrats: Beware Republican front groups bearing endorsements

This being a year in which Democrats are expected to make some serious gains (yes, even in Arizona), many groups noted for their slavish, even monomaniacal, support of all things and candidates Republican are wading into the Democratic side of the ballot.  They've been issuing endorsements and spending money in D primaries.

Generally speaking, there are just to "primary" reasons to do so (yes, pun intended :) ) -

1.  They're trying to give a boost to a candidate they consider to be weaker in a general election.  The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) tends to go this route (note: their "Endorsements" page is blank for some reason, but they have issued endorsements in the past and in the current election cycle).

2.  They think that the candidate in question will be receptive to their entreaties if/when the candidate wins the election.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has noticed such activity in a race in southern AZ, and now there is evidence of it here in Maricopa County.

A assemblage of "independent" expenditure groups has paid for and released a mail piece supporting Ken Cheuvront in the LD24 race for state senate against current State Representative Katie Hobbs.

A quick look at some of the listed sponsors of the piece:

The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce?  Headed by Todd Sanders?  Endorsed Jan Brewer for Governor in 2010.  And Sanders worked for the Republican caucus in the AZ House until a few years ago.

The Arizona Cattlemen's Association?  Headed by Bas Aja?  The last time I looked, there wasn't any ranch land in LD24, which covers a swath stretching across south Scottsdale and central and eastern Phoenix.  And Aja?  He's a Republican PC in Buckeye.


A mailer from Cheuvront's campaign touts another "special" endorsement -

The Arizona Multi Housing Association (AZ MHA)?  This one may actually be about the *next* election.  One of the most persistent rumors in AZ's political circles is that Cheuvront is going to run for Justice of the Peace in two years because a term as JP will quadruple his elected official pension.

The Multi Housing Association's members tend to be involved in evictions.  Lots of evictions.

And JPs?  They adjudicate evictions.  Lots of evictions.

Think the AZ MHA would like a JP who's inclined to turn a blind eye when they cut a few corners in the eviction actions?

Bonus endorsement quibble:  The endorsement that's implied, but not directly claimed.  Mostly because the endorser actually supports another candidate.

Check out the quote from former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.

It makes it seem as if he has endorsed Cheuvront, yet doesn't directly state that as fact.

Which is good for Cheuvront, because Gordon actually endorsed Katie Hobbs.

Oopsie.


Note:  In the interests of full disclosure, not that I've tried to hide it, I support and have already voted for Hobbs.

Dear NRA: What's the magic number?

We have the "small" numbers -

- Six people killed and three wounded by a white supremacist at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

- At least 12 killed and 30 wounded at a movie theater in Colorado.

- Six killed and another dozen injured at a supermarket in Tucson.

- Four people killed by another white supremacist in AZ.

- A 16-year old boy killed in northern California.

- A 30-year old man killed in Nevada.

- And on...and on...and on...and on...

All leading to a *BIG* number - 30,000+ gun-related deaths per year (per the Centers for Disease Control).

Firearms enthusiasts/fetishists (use whichever term you prefer) will claim that more people die as a result of car accidents every year, and based on the CDC data linked above, that's true.  By approximately 3000 victims.

They can make that claim, but it's a false equivalency, for a couple of reasons.

- As these USDOJ statistics of non-fatal gun incidents show, the number of victims of gun incidents is always larger than the number of incidents.

In short, if there is an "incident" involving a firearm, it is more likely than not that someone will be injured or killed in each *incident*.

However, there are billions of motor-vehicle person-trips per year with literally *trillions* of passenger miles-driven each to reach ~35K motor vehicle deaths per year (2009 number).  Even adding in non-fatal injuries to the total, there were ~9.5 million motor vehicle accidents in the US in 2009 that resulted in slightly less than 2.3 million injuries or deaths.

In short, if there is an "accident" involving a motor vehicle, there is less than one chance in four that it will result in a death or injury (US Census Bureau statistics).

- In addition, when someone is injured or killed by a motor vehicle, it is almost always an accident or the result of the use of that motor vehicle in a manner for which it wasn't designed; when someone is killed by a firearm, it is frequently deliberate and a result of using said firearm for the exact purpose for which it was designed.

Yet the NRA and other gun enthusiasts/fetishists (again, your choice) are implacably opposed to even discussing ways to reduce gun violence in the US.

They've made a value judgement - their ability to obtain, carry, and use firearms, virtually unfettered by any constraints from civil or criminal law is more important than the lives of thousands of innocents.

As harsh as that sounds, I could have accused them of making a crasser, and far more cynical, value judgement, one where they actually welcome the litany of "firearms incidents" in the country because they lead to more revenue and profits for firearms manufacturers.

I don't know if anyone from the NRA/gun lobby will read this, or would dare to admit it if they did, but if they happen to do so, I have a couple of questions for them -


How many guns have to be sold before your benefactors in the firearms industry find that even their unbridled avarice is met?

How many innocent people have to die before your bloodlust is satiated?

What's the magic number?

Maricopa County school board candidates: time is running short

School board candidates have until Wednesday at 5 p.m to turn in their signatures, so there is still time, but it doesn't look like there will even be enough candidates to fill all of the seats up for election, much less enough for the elections to be contested.

Note: The Arizona School Boards Association has information on school boards and members here.

Per the Maricopa County Education Service Agency (a watered-down name for the county school department, much like public education has been watered in Arizona), there are 170 school board seats up for election in Maricopa County this year.

However, as of Friday, only 74 candidates had even submitted nominating petitions.

One race worth keeping an eye on is that for Mesa Unified #4.  It has three seats up for election and only two people have submitted sigs.

And one of them is Jerry Walker.

Walker was once a member of the governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District, where he was most noted for his use of his office to at a platform for pushing his bigotry upon the College community, and for using his office to intimidate and harass any student, staff, or faculty member who dared to disagree with him.

He makes Russell Pearce look like a cuddly "puddy tat". 

I haven't had a chance to look at the other candidates yet and won't do so until the ballots are set, but some of the candidates/potential candidates in the southeast valley area of Maricopa County look to be more than a little sketchy.

Later...

Primary Ballot Time - 2012

Well, for those who vote by mail, this week was a big week - ballots for the August primary election have started hitting mailboxes across the state.

Here's mine -

In the contested races that are visible in the pic, I voted for David Schapira for Congress (more on that below), Katie Hobbs for State Senate, and Chad Campbell and Lela Alston for State House.  On the other side of the ballot, it was Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff, John Washington for Mayor of Scottsdale, and Denny Brown for Scottsdale City Council (so far, I'm single-shotting Brown, but we can vote for up to three candidates in that race.)

As for the race for Congress -

While all three candidates have their good points, and all are basically on the right side of the "big issues", only one will do the best job of representing the Ninth Congressional District. That one is David Schapira. He is a "what you see is what you get" kind of candidate - honest, direct, and straightforward. His primary concern is working to make this a better community, by supporting education, health care opportunity, small business, and all of the things that help make a community a *home*. I'm proud to call him my state senator and prouder still to call him a friend.

He will be Arizona's next great Congressman.

The Pearce emails: the deeper you dig, the more nuggets you find

I know it's been a few weeks since they came out, and this is a bit of "old news", but the hundreds of pages of Russell Pearce's bigoted emails are still turning up nuggets.  In this case, he is thoroughly willing to misuse quotes and science to serve his bigoted ends.

To whit:  on page 20 of the linked .pdf file, Pearce quotes a Democrat, President Harry S. Truman -

I think that the line was actually first used in the 1948 presidential campaign, but to be fair to Pearce, that issue of Look magazine may have contained an interview or quote from Truman.  Given that Pearce was born in 1947 (or so says his Wikipedia bio), he was probably too young in 1948 to pay attention to presidential candidates, and by 1956, if he was soaking up wisdom at the (metphorical) knee of any "Democrat", it was probably Bull Connor.

But whether it was 1948 or 1956, either way, Truman wasn't talking about immigration or immigrants.

To whit2:  On page 45 of the same file, Pearce forwarded material that admits the reality of global warming and other environmental concerns, matters that Republican orthodoxy either minimizes or calls an outright hoax -

Now, it seems as if the phenomena cited were meant to serve as points arguing against all immigration (not just the undocumented variety that Pearce claims is all that he is concerned with), but hey, it's a start.  :)

Andy Tobin: AZ House Hypocrite-In-Chief

Laurie Roberts, a columnist for the Arizona Republic has mounted a public awareness campaign/series of columns called "De-kookify the Capitol".  In it, she shines a light on some of the looniest members of the lege.

And being a pretty honest person, Roberts' had to select Republicans as the kookiest members of the lege (one of the downsides of having a supermajority is that the kooks get to run wild.  And run they did...)

Naturally, House Speaker Andy Tobin had to weigh in on the matter, even though he wasn't named as one of the "kooks" (and trust me, if I had written the list, it would have had 61 names on it, including his).

He responded with an op-ed piece published in the Republic, excoriating Roberts for daring to criticize the members of the lege, and the Republic for publishing that criticism.

Most All of it is utterly hypocritical BS, and Tobin sets the tone for his piece in the opening sentence (emphasis mine) -

Only The Arizona Republic would allow one of its employees to disrespect public servants...

Tobin and his cohorts have spent years disrespecting teachers, police officers, firefighters, highway workers, and any other people who serve the public by working to make society a more educated, safer, and smoother-functioning place.

Tobin et. al. have mounted repeated attacks on teachers (union busting bills), all state employees (turning the state's merit protection employment system into a winner-takes-all spoils system controlled by politicians), public safety (guns on campus), democracy (birther bills, interfering in municipal elections), women's rights to control their own bodies (anti-choice and anti-contraception bills), Arizona's future fiscal stability (massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy) and Arizona's Latino population (creating a state-sponsored militia force to target Mexican immigrants, among *many* other bills).

What they haven't done is pass any bills that actually *help* the public, even refusing to change a couple of words in Arizona law that would have allowed long-term unemployed Arizonans to receive a few more weeks of federal unemployment benefits.  A change that would have cost the state absolutely nothing.

However, Tobin tries to wrap himself and his gang caucus in some sort of mythical "public servant" cloak that he apparently believes immunizes him (and the rest of the wingnuts in his caucus) from criticism.

Such immunity from criticism doesn't exist, even for actual public servants.  If it did, much of the time, the lege would have nothing to spout off about.  OK, other than women, Latinos, members of the LGBT community, other racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities, people who disagree with them, black helicopters, UFOs...

And the only way that Tobin et. al. can be considered "public servants" is if "public" is defined as "lobbyists ranging from Cathi Herrod to Chuck Coughlin and all of the wingnuts and corporate stooges in between".

Last Day To Register To Vote In The August Primary

Pic courtesy Mi Familia Vota - Arizona

Today, July 30, is the deadline to register to vote in the August primary election in Arizona.  One can register online here at ServiceArizona.com.

In Maricopa County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Pima County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Pinal County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Coconino County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Yuma County, an early/mail-in ballot must be requested in writing.  The form for that can be downloaded here.

For the other counties in AZ, contact your county's Elections Department (hint:  the search terms should be your county's name, the word "county", and the word "elections") and follow the procedures laid out.  In all cases, you should be registered to vote before you request and early ballot.


Later...

It should be an active third party expenditure year

...I don't mean that the Libertarians, Greens, or some other party will experience significant electoral success, but that there will be a *lot* of "third party" spending to influence elections (meaning spending from non-candidate and non-political party groups).  And not just at the federal level, either (which is what this post is about).

There have been a large number of new state-level committees formed this year to serve as conduits for election-influencing money.  A sampling, with filer ID number (for now, I'm only looking at committees with filer IDs issued in 2012, and leaning toward those that have reported accepting/expending money, though there will be exceptions to that) -

PACs -

Arizona Entrepreneurs, 201200147, chaired by Meredith Munger, who appears to be an operative for the AZGOP.  No candidate-focused expenditures reported as yet.    

Arizona Leadership Fund, 201200486, chaired by Doug Ducey, Arizona's state treasurer.  Just speculating here, but it looks like something set up to provide cover for him to dole out money to GOP candidates/buy supporters for a 2014 reelection run/possible run for governor.  Not illegal (so far as I know); not even terribly unethical.  Just not terribly subtle, either.  No non-operational expenditures/disbursements reported as yet.

Arizona Liberty Project LLC, 201200104, chaired by Mark Spinks, a former Congressional candidate and indecent exposer.  Has already given money to candidates Steve Smith, Steve Montenegro, and Russell Pearce, R wingers one and all.

Arizona Project PC, 201200242, chaired by Debra McGrew, who appears to be a tea party-type.  No non-operational expenditures/disbursements reported as yet.

arizona teachers association, 201200416, chaired by John Jay Hedgepath.  No expenditures reported as yet, but already infamous - it turns out this "teachers association" doesn't include people who are "teachers" by the normal definition of the word (you know, the definition that includes a classroom).  Possibly formed to serve as a front group for Russell Pearce.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Arizona PAC, 201200148.  It's a law firm's PAC, chaired by Janna Day, an attorney with the firm, and "treasurered" (is that even a word?  :) ) by Michael Preston Green, a widely-known AZ lobbyist/legal hired gun.  They've already doled out thousands of dollars in contributions to office holders and candidates.  The recipients of their largesse are mostly Republicans, though a few corpora-Dems are on the list, too.

Healthcare Professionals for American Rights, 201200415.  No expenditures reported as yet, but it was created on the same day as the "arizona teachers association" above, by the same two people.  Don't expect authentic "healthcare professionals" to be involved with this; do expect pro-Russell Pearce snipes and press releases.

People's Rights, 201200459, chaired by Peter Bayardi, who apparently is a tea-party type.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Southern Arizona Conservative PAC, 201200522, chaired by Donald Woolley.  Some activity, but the most interesting is a two-step where the committee accepted money from State Sen. Frank Antenori's constituent services account and then turned around and made contributions to Antenori's failed campaign for Congress (June 30th report).  There was also a transfer from Antenori's federal committee to the state-level PAC.

There may be a couple of "oopsies" here.

1.  None of the available reports from Antenori's constituent services account shows the expenditures.  They should.  If a nickel is spent on a piece of penny candy (what can I say?  Inflation has taken its toll :), it must be tracked and reported.

2.  State law covering officeholder accounts.

From ARS 41-133 -

F. An officeholder shall not transfer officeholder account monies to any other account or committee except for another officeholder account for that same officeholder.

Not a lot of wiggle room with "shall not transfer".

There are also questions about the transfers of funds between a state-level PAC and a federal campaign committee.  It is allowable under certain, limited, circumstances, but I'm not sure if this is one of them or not.  I have an email out to the FEC, and will update when/if they reply.

Update on 30 July -

Christian Hilland, a spokesperson for the FEC, replied to my emailed inquiry by pointing out some possibly applicable areas of the FEC's rules:

Page 52 of the FEC's Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Non-Campaign Related Expenses
Campaign funds may be used for the following purposes that are not related to the candidate’s campaign for federal office:

• Unlimited transfers to any national, state or local party committee. 113.2(c).

• Donations to state and local candidates, subject to the provisions of state law.


Page 61 of the FEC's Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Transfers from Candidate’s Nonfederal Committee Are Prohibited
A candidate’s authorized (federal) committee may not accept funds or assets transferred from a committee established by the same candidate for a nonfederal election campaign. At its option, however, a nonfederal committee of the same candidate may refund its leftover funds to its contributors and may coordinate arrangements with the federal campaign for a solicitation of those same persons. The full cost of this solicitation must be paid by the federal committee. 110.3(d). See also AO 1996-33.

I'm not sure, and perhaps one of the attorneys in the AZ blogosphere, will add their knowledge and experience to this discussion, but these sections don't seem to apply directly to the situation here, at least not entirely.  They do seem to allow the transfer of federal money to state-level committees under certain circumstances, but I don't think that this situation is quite covered by these sections.

However, the transfer of $295.44, with a memo "date of contribution" of March 6, 2012, was not reported on his Congressional committee's "pre-special election" report which covered that period of time, or in the "July Quarterly" report, which covered the period including May 17, 2012, the date of the entry in the receiving PAC's report.  The two contributions *from* the state-level PAC *to* the Congressional campaign were reported, however.

This stuff doesn't actually clear up much, but it's a start.

In the event the above two links don't work to bring up the reports, go to this FEC search page, and input the name "Antenori".  On the next page, select C00500926.  After that, select the appropriate report.

End update...

Southwest Solutions, 201200457, formed by the same people on the same as "People's Rights", above.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Veterans Against Losing Our Republic (V.A.L.O.R.), 201200538.  The organizers are a tea-party type and a Republican former candidate for the lege.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Vote No Arizona, 201200392.  Not sure what they want us to vote "no" on, but since one of the organizers is a tea-party type, they're probably against anything that would benefit Arizona.  No expenditures reported as yet.



Independent expenditure committees -

Arizona Deserves The Best, 201200063.  This one was formed by GOP "consultant" Constantin Querard to funnel money to Russell Pearce during the recall election last year.  Through May 31 of this year, they don't report any expenditures on 2012 races, but it's still early.  And Pearce is in some desperate straits in his campaign to return to the legislature.

Arizona Voter Education Fund, 201200584.  Chaired by Max Fose, a GOP operative/former McCain staffer.  Just guessing here, but something tells me that this would be better named the "Arizona Voter Mis-education Fund".  The committee is so new that no reports have been filed yet.

Arizonans for An Honest Government, 201200583. Chaired by one Floyd Brown, who the guiding light behind a faux journalism (and stridently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic) website.  No reports filed as yet.

Coalition for Freedom and Prosperity, 201200152.  Chaired by one Jeff Smith of Gilbert, who I think is the same Jeff Smith who has tried to mount a primary challenge to Jeff Flake, attacking Flake from the right (not exact a lot of room to work with to the right of Flake).  I'm not sure because his name serves as spectacularly poor search terms.  :)


Look for many more such committees to spring up between now and the elections.

Later...

Fun with campaign signs, part 2

Spotted in Scottsdale on July 28 -

Three of the candidates in Scottsdale; not going to vote for any of them, but those are some sharp looking signs - simple, colorful, and eye-catching.

The signs are two-sided, which isn't unusual, but they have different candidates on the opposite sides of the signs.  Which is very unusual.

A bit of an explanation for the similarity of the signs - all three signs have the same "paid for by" line on them.

Interestingly, the PAC that paid for the signs formed on July 24, filed the paperwork on July 27, and had signs designed, printed, and up by July 28?  Even saying that the committee was OK to operate on the 24th (a point in the law that I couldn't get clarification on today, being a Sunday and all :) ), four days to design the signs, contract with a printer, get the signs printed, accept delivery of the signs, and actually put some up, well, that is incredibly fast.

Either they were paying for some serious OT at the printer (which is OK) or they accepted and expended funds on election-influencing activities before the committee was formed, legally speaking (not so OK).

One of the other campaigns may find this something worth looking into.

Of course, the signs may not last long during the Arizona monsoon season -

 No grommets.  The first strong breeze will cause the wires holding up the signs to slice through the signs.

Later...

AZ Secretary of State's website down

Update: as of approximately 10:30 a.m, the website is back up.  However, getting into the campaign finance reporting database is problematical.  Other parts of the website may be difficult/impossible to access.  End update...

Early ballots for the August primary election drop on Thursday, and the voter registration deadline for that election is tomorrow, and since sometime Saturday afternoon, the AZSOS' website has looked like this -

I'm not sure when it went down, not exactly.  I've seen estimates that it went down around 3 p.m. Saturday.  I know that at approximately 2:30 p.m. it was still working, because I was doing some research and took a break.  A few hours later, there were some posts on FB from friends noting that it was down.  A quick check confirmed their posts, and as of this writing, the SOS' website is still down.

I'm not the first, or only, person to notice this, as David Safier at Blog for Arizona noted here.

Nor will I be the only one to question the timing of the outage, or the length of it.

The way to Victory

This is the first in a series of guest posts from occasional contributor and steady friend (and friend of the blog) Jerry Gettinger concerning the Democratic National Convention taking place in Charlotte in September.  Jerry won a spot in Arizona's delegation to the convention earlier this year.


The delegates elected to represent the Democrats of CD5.  Jerry is fourth from the left.

He has submitted the first piece in the series.  This one is on the genesis of his run for a delegate spot.

More will follow.

From Jerry:

A few months ago, my wife Ruth, who is as apolitical as you can get, was reading her email. An announcement from the State Democratic headquarters asking for applications for State Committee persons who would be interested in an appointment as a delegate to the national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Up until then, I hadn't thought about it. However, at my wife's urging, I began thinking. (That may sound bad, but I tend to leave the thinking part to my wife). This time, I decided to look into the matter on my own. The editor of Random Musings has been kind enough to allow me to tickle my ego by writing a travelogue detailing my experience. If all works, I will be writing in a Random (get the pun?) time frame inviting you to share. Anything in particular you would like to hear about, let me know.

Here is what I found out in order to be a delegate to the Democratic Party convention this year: First of all, the purpose of a convention is to nominate a candidate to be president and a vice president. that is what the Party officers want you to think. But...there is also the matter of having fun. And a convention is fun. anyone who has attended one comes back with the same description..."wow, did I have fun".

However, you have to get there. So I looked around and found the page that explained what I needed to do to become a delegate. In order to be a delegate one has to be a Democrat. That is a registered Democrat on the state of Arizona.  In order to become eligible, I had to submit a statement of candidacy.

What does it mean to become a delegate? Quite simply it means you can vote to nominate the Party's candidates to be president and vice president along with any other business relating to the state. That said. I was curious as to how many and what determines the number of delegates from each state.  Each state has a number of delegates according to the number of registered Democrats in that state.

   Part of my statement of candidacy was if I were to be elected a delegate, for whom would I vote. So there I was, telling everyone that if you elect me a delegate, I will vote for OBAMA. I'll tell you why that makes a difference in my next epistle.

 

For now, adios and hasta la vista, baby



Dear UK, we're not all rude boors.

...OK, we can be boorish, and a little rude, but that's part of being an American, and we are a little proud of that.

However, even we draw the line at treating our best friends with contempt.  Loud shirts and loud voices are one thing; gratuitous insults are quite another.

I mean, we might argue that baseball is a far superior game to cricket, and that the Three Stooges are funnier than Benny Hill ever was (we will grant that Monty Python was just sublime).  However, we would never claim that the UK is incapable of putting on a fine Olympics.

I know Mitt Romney insulted the UK, and people in the UK are justifiably upset.

For what it's worth, many, perhaps a majority, of us here in the United States have a similarly low opinion of him.  He's insulted us many times (and keep him away from your dogs).

We won't object if you mock him as much as we do.  We would offer to let you keep him for a while (a country that's been around as long as the UK *must* have some law about insulting the head of state or something like that), but we want to send him to the dustbin of electoral history during this autumn's elections, and need his presence here.

So mock him and demand an apology, but please send him back. 

Then you can have him back.  The wait will give you time to make the darkest and dankest prison in your country, well, darker and danker.

Thank you for your patience.

In friendship,

A wiseass American blogger

Harry Mitchell endorses David Schapira in the CD9 primary

I haven't written much about endorsements in the CD9 primary.  Generally, endorsement competitions degenerate into a "tit for tat" fight.  Most people and organizations that issue endorsements have their own agendas, agendas that may not synch up with the needs of a particular constituency or district.  That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just the way it is.

Most politically active people don't pay attention to them - we like it when our favorite candidate receives an endorsement, but most endorsements aren't deal-makers or deal-breakers for activists. 

However, there are a few endorsements that rise above the crowd.

Harry Mitchell's endorsement is one such that stands out.

He's been a part of Arizona as a public servant, friend, and mentor for more than four decades.

He is a former high school teacher, city council member, mayor, state senator, and member of Congress.

And during all of that, he has been a husband, father, and grandfather.

In short, when Harry talks, people listen (sorry EF Hutton)

The respect for him is so widely held, and the affection for him is so deeply felt, people who don't care about endorsements care about *his* endorsement. 

Well, in the CD9 primary, he has endorsed David Schapira, a state senator, school board member, father and husband himself.  From an email -

The primary in Congressional District 9 has pitted three of the brightest members of the Democratic Party in Arizona against each other. All three candidates are leaders in our state and I am honored to call them friends. I believe that each of them would serve admirably – and the creation of this new Tempe-centered district has presented a great opportunity to send a strong community-based representative to Congress.

Tempe has always been different than other cities, especially when it comes to elections. Yes, we’ve disagreed on issues and done so passionately. Yes, we’ve debated and we’ve fought hard. But the nature of our politics has become increasingly polarized and divisive. We witnessed it in the last mayoral race. It was discouraging, to say the least. This is also why I didn’t wade into endorsing a candidate in this race lightly.

I believe it is important that we elect someone who understands and values our community – and will work hard to represent it. This is why I’ve decided to cast my primary vote for Tempe’s State Senator, David Schapira.

I’ve often said that you can’t be successful unless other people want you to be. For the better part of 40 years, I’ve held the titles of teacher, councilman, mayor, senator and Congressman. I’ve been blessed to have so many people in our community be supportive of me. This is why I hope you will join me in supporting David Schapira for Congress.

Harry Mitchell 

          


Later...

Romney: No new gun laws because they won't prevent all 'bad things'

Interesting.  Mitt Romney's response to calls for discussion of possible new gun laws, calls stemming from last week's massacre in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado is that we shouldn't do so because no laws will remove all "bad things" from society.

From Yahoo! News, written by Holly Bailey -

Mitt Romney suggested new gun control legislation likely wouldn't stop a massacre like last week's movie theater shooting in Colorado, but "changing the heart of the American people" possibly would.

Romney made the comment during an interview with NBC's Brian Williams in London, the first stop of the presumptive Republican nominee's seven-day overseas tour.

NBC released an early excerpt of the interview, scheduled to air on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News:

{snip}

[Quoting Romney in the interview] And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.

Under that line of reasoning, we wouldn't have drug laws (it's not like drug use has decreased under those laws, much to the immense joy and profit of the prison industrial complex), we wouldn't have traffic laws (people still do unsafe things with motor vehicles, no matter what the law says), or, for that matter, we wouldn't have most criminal laws (murder, rape, robbery, etc, still happen even though all of those things are "illegal").

The attitude exhibited by Romney in this matter is almost Libertarian.

I know that Romney changes his policy positions almost as often as the rest of us change our socks, but does anything about Romney scream "Libertarian", except when laissez-faire policies benefit him personally?