Blog For Arizona

More analysis of the election -- from the right

by David Safier

This is the first time I'm quoting Emil Franzi, who writes a conservative-leaning column in The Explorer, where I write a liberal-leaning column. But when both of us are thinking more-or-less the same thing on an issue or two and he brings in knowledge I don't have, he's worth quoting.

Franzi is writing about Prop 200 which looked like it had legs then went down huge, 70-30. He says the idea for the proposition was cooked up by "a Phoenix political consultant" to help elect Republican city council candidates.

The advice, apparently based on rudimentary polling data, was to drop a bundle not on a direct assault but on an oblique move based on a public safety initiative that was supposed to draw out voters more inclined to elect council candidates who supported it. This became the now infamous Prop. 200, ultimately defeated 70-30.

I was one of many Democrats who said the same thing about Prop 200. It's good to get confirmation from someone on the other side. I hadn't heard the idea came from a Phoenix consultant. Unless I learn differently, I'll assume Franzi got that right.

Clearly, Franzi thinks the strategy was a boneheaded idea. Here is Franzi's take on political consultants, from the final paragraph.

. . . it should be clear that there are some overpaid consultants who deserve to be recognized and humiliated along with the rubes who pay them with other people's money. 

Like Franzi, I wonder about the high paid consultant strategy for winning elections. It doesn't seem to have served Arizona Dems too well lately. Republicans can ask their own questions, they don't need any help from me, but I think Dems need to ask themselves whether political consultants, who often, like generals, are fighting the last war, should be given so much power over the way current or hopeful public officials conduct their campaigns.

Further musings on the City Council elections

by David Safier

I wonder if the City Council election results would have been different if Trasoff and Uhlich came out strong and early against Prop 200. I know the smart money consultants said, Play it safe, you can't be against increasing police and fire protection. But what if they didn't "play it safe" . . .

First, a digression.

During the last presidential primaries, the Dem nomination came down to three choices, all intelligent, all personable, all reasonably qualified. With an unpopular R president, the election was ours, so long as we didn't do something really stupid.

The smart, careful, cautious folks said, for God's sake, don't nominate the black guy! The country isn't ready for that yet, and when his last name rhymes with Osama? Why don't we just give up and cede the election to the Rs?

The white woman? This isn't the time to risk everything by trying to break new ground. And with her husband hanging around her neck like an albatross, she might as well have a bull's eye on her forehead.

The only safe choice is the white guy, John Edwards.

That would have turned out nicely, huh? Can you say President McCain, boys and girls?

Back to the City Council race. We all knew Prop 200 was a disaster. Imagine what might have happened if Trasoff and Uhlich decided to pitch their tents with the anti-200 forces early. While it might have appeared unpopular at first, they could have used it as a way to tell people they'd increased the police force already, something most voters didn't -- and still don't -- know. They could have talked about how crime went down during their tenures. They could have talked about their long range plans to add more police and fire protection when the economy turns around. And then they could have said, It may not be a popular stand, but I know what's best for Tucson right now, and it's not burdening us with an unfunded mandate. They would have looked resolute, not wishy washy.

Because of differences between them, Trasoff and Uhlich ran very separate campaigns. They could have used this one issue as a point of unity -- put out joint fliers and ads, pool money with the No-on-200 people to run TV ads against the Prop featuring both of them, make joint appearances.

Eventually, the voters came around and massacred Prop 200. How many of those folks would have come around to Trasoff and Uhlich as well and changed the course of the election?

I'm not going to say for certain this would have earned them both votes, but I'm guessing it would have done far more good than harm. I'm guessing Uhlich would have won easily and Trasoff might have squeaked out a narrow win.

The moral of this story is, candidates who play it safe, especially when they go against their principles to avoid offending some voters, are playing a very dangerous game. Better to stand for something. Otherwise, why should I work for you? Why should people on the fence vote for you?

Musings on the election

by David Safier
The bloggers' code (which I had to swear to uphold before they'd teach me the secret handshake) requires me to air my inexpert opinions about Tuesday's elections. Here they are, for what they're worth.

Republicans earned bragging rights. They picked themselves up from the 2008 losses and scored some significant wins around the country. In Tucson, no matter how the City Council races turn out, the challengers made them two of them close and may pull out a win in either or both (AZ Blue Meanie said Kozachik has semi-officially beaten Trasoff, but Uhlich is squeaking out a victory) -- in a heavily Democratic city. Any news of the death of the Republican party was premature. What they lack in numbers, they made up for in enthusiasm.

But that's also why their wins are a poor indicator of future success. Only the dedicated few vote in odd year elections, so the group that's most fired up tends to show up in greater numbers. The 2010 races could be very different ball games. More voters will dampen the importance of the enthusiasm factor. Besides, the Ds, seeing that Rs have decided not to roll over and play dead, will campaign harder and make a point of showing up at the polls. The 2010 races begin today.

That being said, Democratic candidates had better give their voters something to vote for. The most dangerous thing they can do is play it safe. If candidates don't define themselves, the opposition will be more than happy to define the Ds, painting them with liberal applications of tar and feathers and hoping the voters will ride them out of town on a rail.

With the caveat that I'm a lousy political advisor, my advice to Ds is, stand for something, proudly and strongly. Not something vague. Something substantial and even controversial. Though it may sound counter intuitive, I think AZ Democrats should take a stand as caring, mature grownups and say, "If we need higher taxes to ensure our children's futures by giving them first class educations and quality health care and social services, then so be it. We need higher taxes." Don't use euphemisms like "revenue enhancements." Say "taxes." And explain which taxes you prefer and why they will be equitable and produce the money the state needs to move into a more prosperous future. Show the voters you have the courage to say what you mean even if it's risky. But never say the word "taxes" without saying "education" and maybe "health care" in the same breath.

Sure it's a risk to come out for raising taxes. But it's far riskier to cower in a corner, then be attacked by opponents who hammer Dems, accusing them of pretending they don't want to raise taxes. If Dems don't own up to it with pride and conviction, they'll end up waffling, weaseling and looking spineless. That's a good way to lose elections.

How serious was Kozachik about wanting that Rio Nuevo job?

by David Safier

A little over a week ago, I posted an email city council candidate Steve Kozachik sent to Nina Trasoff's office that was basically a job application for a big job with Rio Nuevo. He wrote it before he declared as a candidate.

In a Star article today, Pima Dem Chair Jeff Rogers cited the email and claimed Kozachik's bid for the council was spurred by "bitter feelings" about not getting the job.

Rogers suggested "bitter feelings" helped fuel Kozachik's desire to try to take Trasoff's seat on the council. "When he didn't get his no-bid contract, he decided to throw his hat in the ring," he said.

Kozachik called the claim "ludicrous."

There was no project even open to bid at the time, [Kozachik] said, adding he just thought he'd see if his skills might be a good mesh. "I don't have sour grapes. I've got a good job," he said.

He makes his interest sound pretty casual, kind of a passing fancy. But in the email, he's selling himself pretty hard. He wrote that he wanted to contact the arena manager firm

. . . to discuss the prospect of my hiring on with them to oversee the actual construction of the arena, beginning with design, then as stakeholder representative through the building and finally building ops manager when the project is completed. . . . I believe the fit is perfect, as is the timing.

He goes on to make some specific suggestions about how to build the arena to show he knows his stuff. You can read the complete email in the earlier post.

Were there "bitter feelings" or "sour grapes" involved? Here's what Kozachik said in a Why I'm Running piece in the Star in April.

I reached out to Councilwoman Nina Trasoff's office in the middle of last year because I saw they were floundering. They didn't answer. It makes me crazy to use out-of-towners for Rio Nuevo.

Maybe the snub just made him crazy, not bitter.

Did Steve Kozachik want a job before he wanted on the council?

by David Safier

Back in April, the Star ran a short "Why I'm running" piece on Nina Trasoff and Steve Kozachik, introducing their runs for the city council seat. Here's Kozachik's statement.

Why running?: Because it matters. I reached out to Councilwoman Nina Trasoff's office in the middle of last year because I saw they were floundering. They didn't answer. It makes me crazy to use out-of-towners for Rio Nuevo. I'm tired of seeing tax money wasted. Now I'm at the point, if you can't join them, beat them. I have a track record of doing the stuff they're trying to do, on time, on budget and in the public sector.

Kozachik did reach out to Trasoff's office like he said, but it looks like it was less an offer to help than a job application. He wanted to head the Rio Nuevo arena project starting at the design stage and continuing as building ops manager when the arena was built.

Here's an email Kozachik sent to Alex Hingle in January, 2009. At the time, Hingle was a Council Aide to Trasoff.

Hi Alex;
Nice chat -glad to hear that you're upbeat re the TIF money staying home where it belongs.
Here's your memory jogger -who's the arena manager firm that the City's finalizing their contract with? I'm told that purchasing will be Including ~ me on the selection committee for the CM@R when they get around to that RFP -~~" ~ -- ;~ and the arena mgr will also be a part of that team. I'd like to contact them for two reasons; #1, to discuss the CM@R process and what role they see themselves playing in it, and secondly, to discuss the prospect of my hiring on with them to oversee the actual construction of the arena, beginning with design, then as stakeholder representative through the building and finally building ops manager when the project is completed. It's exactly what I do for Intercollegiate Athletics -witness the recent completion of the Richard Jefferson Gymnasium (which you're still invited to come and see) -so I believe the fit is perfect, as is the timing.
With that, whatever you can get me re contact information / name, # , etc / so I can initiate some contact would be great.
Thanks -Steve K.

..let me know when you and cr would like to do a walk through. I think you'll see plenty of similarities between what I just finished here and where we may be headed downtown re the arena. I still believe we can make it work financially by building the structure sub-grade, as we just did here with Jefferson. Tunnel connections to the TCC, shared spaces over there - lots of value added considerations, but they have to be incorporated at design in order for them to make any financial and operational sense. If you think it's worth a meeting, I'll make myself available at your place, or down here.

In the context of that email, this line from the Star piece takes on a whole different flavor: "They didn't answer. It makes me crazy to use out-of-towners for Rio Nuevo." What made him crazy may have had more to do with getting passed over for the job than worrying about the best interests of the city.

Shorter Tom Horne: "Just kidding"

by David Safier

Horne thought he'd hit on a great idea -- the "840 Club," where anyone who gives the max $840 to his campaign for Attorney General gets special access. After all, Horne wants to talk to all Arizonans, but he can't, so why not let the people who really want to talk to him indicate their interest by raising their hands fistfuls of dollars?

But after the Republic exposed the pay-for-access brainstorm, Horne has changed his mind. Not that there's anything wrong with the idea.

Horne said Friday that he still believed the "840 Club" was a good idea but wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.

"No one gets any special favors from me," he said in a written statement. "Any implication to the contrary is wrong."
Horne, a Republican, would not say how many people have given $840 to his campaign. In an interview Friday, he said that he was not required to disclose that until next year under campaign-contribution reporting laws.

He said he did not believe anyone gave money based on the promised meetings.

"They gave to me because they believe in what I stand for," he said in an interview. "If anybody wants their money back . . . I will happily give it back."

Populism Consuming Representative Democracy

By Michael Bryan

Tucson's ballot initiative to peg the ratio of emergency personnel to population seems to me to be the latest iteration of populist discontent being cynically used to snatch at political power while denigrating and disempowering representative democracy.

Too frequently over the past few decades we have seen progressive institutions such as the ballot initiative used to tie the hands of representative government. There are many examples of extremely unwise, but politically facile policy created using populist sentiments: the Prop 13 property tax freeze in California and the disastrous Taxpayer's Bill of Rights arbitrarily limiting the growth of government expenditures in Colorado being chief among them.

In each case, what seems like an easy fix for the difficult and messy business of governance is sold as patent medicine for what ails the body politic. Only later does it become apparent the snake oil contains toxic waste.

There are no easy answers or simple formulas for good governance. Wise policy requires democratic debate and tough deliberation over alternatives, not simplistic slogans and expedient but static 'fixes'.

Every time that the populists tout their latest gee-wiz gew-gaw, they chip away at the power and accountability of representative democracy. By taking the power to make policy and actually govern out of the hands of our elected representatives, we only assure that the accountability and esteem of our elected representatives will further decline.

This latest iteration of this populist disease is the Public Safety First! initiative. By arbitrarily requiring a particular ratio of emergency personnel to population, the representative system by which public preferences for such matters ought to be expressed is bypassed. The fact that all the Republican challengers support this attempt to remove public safety decisions from the very democratically elected body they are seeking to become members of should tell you something about their opinion of the institution, and their philosophy of government.

What gets lost in all the rhetoric about crime in Tucson is that Arizona's communities already spend the most per capita of any state in the nation on crime control, save Nevada. Our communities already struggle under a high financial burden, yet those supporting Prop 200 would have us spend even more in vain.

Reductions in crime will not come from more police and more courts and more prisons. Effective crime control will come from better education, more economic opportunity, a vital civic community, and strong families. Prop 200 does nothing to pursue those goals; indeed, it only assures that less resources are available for those priorities.

The last thing we should do is hand representative political power to those who do not value or respect it, or worse, advocate to strip our democratic institutions of their powers. We cannot fix complex social problems with the blunt instruments of funding formulas and populist slogans. 

It is the American way to solve our problems by confronting them as a free and democratic society, served by those among us who are genuinely interested in coming together to debate and negotiate the best solutions possible. Representative democracy is a wonderful and powerful institution, we mustn't allow rank populist rage to bleed it of its vitality.

Best line of the day

by David Safier
Top this one. I dare you. From the Business Journal.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he would be interested in running for Maricopa County Sheriff if Joe Arpaio opts to run for governor next year.

Huppenthal's baggage

by David Safier
The Ed Supe race is getting crowded. The Dem side has two candidates so far, Penny Kotterman (you can read a BfA interview with her) and Jason Williams. Republicans have a whole slew of hopefuls: Margaret Dugan, deputy state superintendent; State Sen. John Huppenthal; Mary Lou Taylor, Tempe Union High School District board president; and the most recent addition, Gary Nine, superintendent of the Florence Unified School District. It's tough to handicap either primary race, or the general -- far too early. But it's never too early to make educated guesses or start getting info out about the candidates.

A big factor is how visible the run for Ed Supe will be this time around. It's usually one of those "Who cares?" races that get very little attention. This year could be different, and if it is, lesser known candidates will have a better chance to get themselves known. My bet is, more visibility will help a Democrat's chances in the general.

Huppenthal is the highest profile Republican, which should make him the odds on favorite. But Horne is supporting Dugan, his deputy state supe. The other two? No telling what we'll see from them.

Huppenthal carries a bit of baggage with him, so much, in fact, that he might be over the weight limit for most airlines, or for this race.

One piece of luggage is his June 24 trial.

The senator has been charged with misdemeanor theft and tampering with a political sign in connection with a 2008 Election Day incident. Ruth Levin, a 78-year-old Democratic activist, told reporters and police that the senator cut down one of the party's signs at a Chandler apartment complex, then struggled with her over it before driving off in a Lexus SUV. He said earlier he had permission from the property owner to remove the sign.

I've heard the guy has a few anger management issues. That's not a character trait you hope to see in Arizona's über teacher.

The reason Huppenthal took the sign (he admits taking it, but denies there was a struggle) is because he said it contained a lie about another piece of luggage he's carrying around. The sign claimed Huppenthal didn't push for state funding to fix an asbestos, mold and ventilation problem at Corona del Sol High School, a school in his district. The reports I've read on the subject are pretty he said/she said. The claim seems to be that he was pushing for a state loan for the school but not a grant.

Whatever the truth on the Corona del Sol story, my understanding is that it's perfectly fine for a political sign to make a controversial statement about a candidate, especially when "the truth" is open to debate. A candidate pulling it out because he doesn't like what it says? We're definitely talking anger management issues here.

The third piece of luggage, which some would call a carry-on bag, others an albatross, is Huppenthal's very vocal advocacy for school choice, meaning vouchers and charter schools. That issue will probably help him in the primary, but it could work against him if he makes it to the general -- not the charter schools part, the vouchers. If the Democratic candidate can hang the word "vouchers" around his neck, that could mean trouble for Huppenthal. He won't have time to gather up the "Huppenthal is for vouchers" fliers going to people's homes or pull out all the yard signs hammered in across the state.

Note: There's a good post on the topic on Mike McClellan's azcentral.com blog. (The guy's been a high school English teacher for 34 years -- a man after my own heart.) The comment section has a rich discussion about charter schools, including comments by Huppenthal.

Who paid for the Marana hit piece?

by David Safier
Friday, most Marana households received a hit piece slamming Kelle Maslyn, one of four candidates running for two spots in the May 19th general election for Marana Town Council. The group that paid for the piece calls itself People for an Independent Marana.

The problem is, to be an independent expenditure committee, the group has to file with Marana, listing its chair and treasurer, but People for an Independent Marana hasn't filed.

Marana's government bureaucracy says that's OK, the committee has five days to file. But there seem to be two problems with that claim.

The first problem is, the five day rule apparently doesn't exist. An independent expenditure committee can file with Marana in one of two ways: as a group that plans to raise less than $500, or more than $500. Either way, the group has to file when it starts up. If a group that originally said it wanted to raise less than $500 decides to raise more, it has five days to make the change with the city. People for an Independent Marana hasn't filed in either category.

The second problem is, even if you say the committee has five days to file, the clock should have begun ticking the day the group raised its first dollar. Before the flier hit people's mailbox Friday, the group had to raise the money, design the flier, print the flier and take it to the post office. All that takes both time and money. It's hard to imagine a group could get all that done in less than five days, including the time it takes for the piece to make it from the post office to people's mailboxes. And even if they managed it, the five days must be up by now.

Why, then, is Marana shrugging its shoulders and giving the group an extra five days rather than demanding the papers immediately? After all, mail-in ballots are already streaming in, and this race could be decided by a few votes. The mailer could cost Maslyn the margin she needs to win, but information about who's behind the mailer could neutralize its effects.

Some suspect Mayor Ed Honea and council member Patti Comerford have their hands in this, since Maslyn isn't their favorite candidate. Comerford recently had her own problem with campaign filings. Though she had signs up around Marana and sent out mailers before the primary, she only claimed to have collected $100 in her campaign finance report, in the form of a loan she made to herself. After the primary -- she got enough votes that she's in without running in the general -- she released a campaign finance report listing other donors.

Though the link between Honea, Comerford and the mailer is unsubstantiated, it could explain why people in the Marana bureaucracy are willing to cut People for an Independent Marana five days of extra slack.

UPDATE: Tedski makes a good point over at R-Cubed. The hit piece against Maslyn talks about Tucson special interests trying to buy a seat in Marana. "It would be an easier message to swallow," he writes, "if People for an Independent Marana actually revealed who is funding them. Doesn’t seem to be too much to ask if the complaint is about who is funding Maslyn."

Cage versus Melvin

by David Safier
I may be the last to report this, but for anyone who missed it elsewhere, Cheryl Cage has announced her candidacy for the LD-26 Senate seat. She got in the race late in 2008 and lost to Al Melvin. Now she's in early for 2010.

Lena Saradnik, former LD-26 Rep who had to step down for health reasons, is back to her old feisty, optimistic self, I'm happy to say, and she's chairing the campaign. Better political instincts than Saradnik's I have rarely seen. And Don Jorgensen, who ran unsuccessfully for LD-26 Rep in 2008, is Cage's campaign manager.

Cage and Jorgensen are still smarting from their 2008 defeats, but they're smarter, and wiser, for it.

Melvin is the incumbent, which is a big factor with voters.

It's definitely going to be a race to watch. Republican voters are in the majority, but they've shown they will vote in Democrats. And when they vote for Republicans, they're used to moderates like Pete Hershberger and Toni Hellon. Melvin is not Hershberger or Hellon, to put it mildly.

My sense is, this race is going to get statewide attention, since it epitomizes the political divide in Arizona right now.

Any Marana-ites out there?

by David Safier

Marana-ites? Is that the right term? It can't be Marana-ans. You could be a Marana-phile without living there, so that doesn't work.

So, anyone live in Marana? Because we have a minor -- or maybe more than minor -- situation developing in the Town Council election. Tedski reported it on R-Cubed, and I did some digging around on my own as well.

One of the candidates, Patti Comerford, has clearly spent a reasonable amount of money on her campaign, sending out flyers with the words "Paid for by Patti Comerford for Marana Town Council" at the bottom and putting up signs. The problem is, all she claims to have collected for her campaign is $100, a loan she made to herself, and the only expenses she claimed are $30 to the Pima County Recorder for an early ballot list and $25 to the Town of Marana for a sign permit. Here's the campaign finance report with the information.

That can't be good for someone who, in an Explorer article about the Council candidates, says "making good budgeting decisions" is an important issue:

Comerford said her experience with the town puts her in a good place to help take the town’s budget into the future.

“I have an understanding of where our absolute needs are and of areas where we can hold off for now,” she said.

Other issues she brought up as important are maintaining public safety and making good budgeting choices.

For her day job, she's an aide at Marana High School where she runs the Career Center. Maybe she should look for a pamphlet about filling out job applications and financial reports.

2010 election is all about the schools

by David Safier

Note to 2010 Democratic candidates and strategists. The election will be about schools and the children who attend them.

It won't be about budgets or budget cuts. It'll be about budget cuts to schools that deprive children of the opportunity to learn.

It won't be about taxes. It'll be about finding the revenue we need to fully fund our schools for the sake of our children.

It won't be about conservative or liberal. It'll be about who has a plan to give schools the means to educate our children to their full potential

And by the way, it won't be about education. Education is an abstraction. It'll be about schools, real brick and mortar buildings filled with real children being taught by real teachers using up-to-date textbooks and technology.

Candidates who cannot show they are 100% for schools, not only with rhetoric but with money and action, will lose. Candidates who can convince the voters they will fully fund schools so every parent's child will have the opportunity to learn and grow and be ready for future challenges will win.

Republicans are the masters of coming up with simple campaigns based on concrete, hot button issues. Democrats tend to be wonky and talk about policy. In 2010, we have a solid, concrete issue to run on where there is an absolute, clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. And Democrats are definitely on the side of the angels on this one. We have to make sure the voters know it.

Change comes to the Arizona Democratic Party

by David Safier

The leadership of the Arizona Democratic Party took a surprising shift at today's State Reorganization Meeting. Out is former State Chair Don Bivens. In is new State Chair Paul Eckerstrom. There were a few other surprising shifts in other offices, but nothing as dramatic or unexpected as the change at the top.

Here's the best way I can describe what happened.

Think of outgoing chair Don Bivens as the DNC in the Al Gore/John Kerry days. It worked just fine in an earlier era when politics was more of an insiders' game, where the party heads were in the same camp with the major campaign advisers, both were on easy terms with deep pocket donors, and all remained at a distance from the rank and file. Things were cozy and predictable, and if everything worked out right, the Dems held their own or even picked up a little ground in the elections.

It's common knowledge among active Democrats, and it's been reported in the press, that the Dems outspent the Republicans on state races in 2008 and still lost ground. The blame has been put on an unresponsive state party that was run by the Phoenix office and the consulting firms they hired. There was little or no communication with the long time party members working for candidates around the state. It was old style, centralized politics.

Think of Paul Eckerstrom standing at the podium with Howard Dean, who threw out the old DNC rules and lauched the dynamic 50 State Strategy, at one side, and Barack Obama, who perfected the grassroots style of campaigning Dean pioneered, at the other.

Eckerstrom was among those who had fumed at the lost opportunities of the 2008 state elections. He spoke long and often about the changes Dems need to make if they hope to win in 2010 and 2012. But no one knew until today that he planned to run for Chair. It's not clear he knew himself until he arrived at the meeting.

After Bivens gave a perfectly acceptable campaign speech in front of the almost more than 500 assembled Democrats, Eckerstrom launched into a barn burner. As he neared the end of his speech, Eckerstrom's words were nearly drowned out by the audience's cheering. His words and his passion were what people wanted to hear, even though they didn't know it until they heard it. He represented the party of Dean and Obama at a moment when Arizona looks like the only western state carrying on the Bush/Cheney legacy.

Eckerstrom won by a substantial margin.

To compound the change, Eckerstrom is from Pima County. He'd been Dem County Chair a few years back. I don't know my Arizona history well enough to say the last time someone from Pima led the AZDP, but if it happened before, it was a long, long time ago.

Among the six vice chair positions, two are also Pima County Dems -- Vince Rabago, the outgoing county Dem Chair, who Eckerstrom was instrumental in bringing into the party, and Mohur Sidhwa, who was Rabago's first vice chair. The axis of the party's power base has shifted geographically and politically. Maricopa is no longer the absolute center of the Arizona Democratic Party universe.

This is new territory. The Arizona Dems are taking a chance making changes of this magnitude. But change is the name of the game for Democrats right now. Remember, the safest pick during the Dem presidential primaries was supposed to be the white guy, John Edwards. Turned out, that wouldn't have been such a good idea. When he was gone, it seemed safer to pick a well known white female than an untested black male. I don't think I have to tell you the rest of that story. And I won't even venture a guess how the Arizona Democratic story will end. But it's going to be well worth watching.

Update: Though I'm older than Tedski, he can definitely "old man" me about Arizona history. Here's what he says about the last time the Dem Party had a Pima Chair. Be sure to read to the end.

Okay, to answer the quesion I’ve gotten from a few of you, the last Democratic Party chairman from Pima County was Bill Minette, who served from 1991-1993.

And, by the way, since we had a chairman from Pima County that year, that meant the First Vice Chairman could come from Maricopa County. The First Vice Chair during Minette’s reign was a lawyer from Phoenix named Janet Napolitano.

Franken will have the Senate Under His Thumb

by David Safier

Now that it looks like it's official that Al Franken will be our new Senator from Minnesota, you owe it to yourself to see the multiple talents he possesses. Comic, writer, talk show host. We knew all that. But Mick Jagger impersonator? Who knew?

Let S. AZ be S. AZ

by David Safier

The Phoenix-based Arizona Democratic Party needs to show more respect for Democrats in Southern Arizona during elections. We've developed some savvy pols down here who understand the lay of the land and have some good ideas about how to win elections, but the state party continues to treat us like slightly dim-witted younger siblings. If we want to gain seats in the State Legislature, the folks in Maricopa need to give us our seat at the table.

It may be that the weak showing of Southern Arizona Democrats in state elections was in the cards. My post earlier this morning talks about the lower Democratic voting numbers in states that went for McCain. But if the state party thinks it's worthwhile to put time and money into picking up seats in Southern Arizona and it wants better results in 2010 than in 2008, it needs to figure out how to do it right.

Here are a few things to think about.

• SOUTHERN ARIZONA IS NOT MARICOPA COUNTY! I'm sorry, was I shouting? Let me try that again.
• Southern. Arizona. Is. Not. Maricopa. County. Just because we're in the same state doesn't mean what makes sense in Maricopa County also makes sense in Pima County -- or Cochise County, or the other counties down here.
• Southern Arizonans don't like Maricopa County. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it's true. It's one of the few things we can all agree on. We think you're bullies who make decisions for the entire state and suck up too much of the financial and environmental oxygen. We think we're underrepresented in political and legislative decisions.
• We're as smart as you are. When you pretend to listen to our ideas, pat us on the heads, then go ahead and do what you were planning to do before you talked to us, we take offense.
• We know Southern Arizona better than you do. We live here. We read the papers every day. We talk to people every day.
• Because we're as smart as you are and know Southern Arizona better than you do, we probably have some very good ideas about what people care about, district by district and precinct by precinct, that could very well win us the extra hundreds of votes we need to defeat Republican candidates.

You might consider some of this when you begin mapping your Arizona's electoral strategy strategies for 2010.
  

The South losing political influence

by David Safier

Here's a short piece from Kevin Drum on his Mother Jones blog (He used to do the Political Animal blog for Washington Monthly) about the south's diminishing political clout. I hope he's got this right.

For many years, the Democratic Party controlled the agenda of American politics and Southerners controlled much of the Democratic Party. So the South had enormous political influence.

Later, most Southerners switched to the Republican Party, but by then it was Republicans who controlled the agenda of American politics. So the South still had enormous political influence.

As of January 20th, however, the Democratic Party will control the American political agenda once again. But Southerners are still Republicans, which means that their political influence will be nearly nonexistent. 

In other words, for the first time since Reconstruction, the South will be almost completely shut out of national power. There are still a few liberal Southerners who belong to the Democratic Party, of course, but the reactionary, traditionalist South is, for the time being, nearly powerless. They will not control anything, their caucus is a discredited rump, and their influence will be negligible. There is no reason to fear them or to care what they think. Their power to filibuster, itself guttering and only barely alive following the 2008 election, will be all they have left. 

This is the first time this will be true in well over a century. So say it again: The South will have essentially no influence over the course of American politics for the next eight years. We live in momentous times.

Voter turnout

by David Safier

A very interesting analysis of voter turnout nationally. Generally, the number of Democratic voters increased while Republicans decreased. But in states that went for McCain . . . 

Here are a few excerpts. The entire article is worth a read.

Turnout in last week's election increased from four years ago but fell far short of some forecasts largely because many Republican voters either stayed home or left blank the presidential section of their ballots.

In states won by President-elect Barack Obama, turnout was more than five percentage points higher than in states won by Republican John McCain, according to a Globe analysis of data compiled by a pair of researchers who study voting patterns in US elections.

[snip]

States that experienced a large drop-off in turnout included McCain's home state of Arizona, which he won; heavily Republican Utah; and Ohio, another GOP-leaning state that fell into the Obama column.

Spaceman

by David Safier

This from Sean McCaffrey, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. He says, while Tim Bee can claim a long list of accomplishments, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' accomplishments are so thin, "you'd have to include marrying a spaceman."

Spaceman. I think that's the first time I've heard that term used to describe an astronaut.

Republicans sit up nights thinking of demeaning titles to give Democrats, their supporters and their spouses. Really, they do, in "think tanks" (read "spin tanks") across the nation. If Gabby married a General, they'd call him G.I. Joe.

Then they "How Dare You!" every time a Democrat is unpatriotic enough to be critical of someone who we're supposed to respect because of his/her rank or position.

Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans have finally reduced themselves to an absurdity in the last elections with their negative tactics. Maybe people will laugh at them instead of thinking, "What if they're right? Just in case, I really can't vote for that scary Democrat."

We can always hope.

Hour long line at Catalina Foothills HS

by David Safier

This is something you just don't see. I was at Catalina Foothills High School passing out literature from 6-8am. When I arrived, the polls hadn't opened, and the line was a good 100 feet long. When I left at 8am, the line had gotten a little shorter, but not much. Those who had voted with an hour wait had been replaced by more voters. But fewer people were arriving, so I expect in an hour or so, the line will be gone.

I've never seen lines at that polling location. Maybe those predictions of an 80-90% vote rate are correct. It's gonna take awhile to count all the votes.