Blog For Arizona

Comment on the Ethnic Studies issue

by David Safier
I'm a relative newcomer to Arizona -- about 5 years -- so I don't have personal knowledge of politics that goes further back than that.

Commenter Rex adds perspective to the issue of Horne's relentless attacks on ethnic studies. Horne needs to burnish his conservative credentials to gain support for his run for Attorney General. His one-two punch, fighting against ethnic studies and increased funding for ELL, helps him counter a serious problem he'll have with conservatives -- he's not 100% anti abortion.

Our right-wing pals at Sonoran Alliance refer to Horne in this post as " Arizona's most prominent pro-choice Republican." With his battle against TUSD's ethnic studies classes, he is trying to reassure the Right of his conservative bonafides. Horne took the same approach when he first ran for state supe. The race-baiting campaign he ran against Jaime Molera and in favor of the proposition against bilingual education was shameless and self-serving.

Can't we all just get along? Guess not.

by David Safier
Let me try to sort this out. Dem legislators don't like the R budget. Guv doesn't like the R budget. R legislators don't like Guv's sales tax increase, and they won't even dignify the Dem budget with a comment. Dem legislators don't like Guv's sales tax increase, because it's the wrong tax increase.

Have I left anyone out?

Who's on first?

The latest scuffle is around Brewer's 5 hour budget hearing, where she asked for "public input." R legislators say she stacked the deck, only inviting people who want to raise the sales tax. "A trough-feeding event," Burns called it. (Good phrase, Bob. Evokes the smell of pork.) Gould got in two slaps: ""She set up a panel of essentially tax spenders to come in and whine and cry about how the legislative budget is going to cut their budget." (Tax-and-spenders and whiners in the same sentence. Nice work!)

Brewer replied, it's true, she wanted to hear from the "stakeholders." Then she got in a few digs of her own.

"If we don't (get additional revenues), then we are going to decimate education, we're going to decimate the most vulnerable people of our state and our public safety," she said. "Do the math."

I imagine the Rs who are fond of saying, 'We're cutting a mere 2% from the education budget, and people who complain that they're not getting public services should get a job,' weren't happy with her use of the verb "decimate," not once, but twice. Everyone is pulling out the heavy verbal artillery.

The AZ Dem party, not to be outdone, put out a press release blasting what it called Brewer's "Spinning Wheels Tour":

. . . a hastily organized, clearly scripted parade of politcal allies  to tout her proposal to raise taxes on the middle class. Brewer intentionally denied the public any opportunity for comment.

Spinning Wheels Tour. That's one of the cleverest phrases I've heard from Dems in a long time. They're beginning to learn from the focus-group-tested phrases that have been thrown at them by Republicans for years.

Party Chair Don Bivens extended the metaphor, commenting, "Governor Brewer needs to work on the budget, not on her camera angles."

Just one big, happy family, sitting around the dinner table hashing out the family budget.

Maybe pigs are jumping really high?

by David Safier
Scarpinato has a piece in this morning's Political Notebook about the Goldwater Institute's Byron Schlomach agreeing with Dem legislators about lowering and broadening the state sales tax.

"The current sales tax is highly distorting because it is not broadly applied," says Byron Schlomach, director of Goldwater's Center for Economic Prosperity. "Therefore, I congratulate the Democrats for having the courage to expand sales taxes into services. If the sales tax rate was lowered and the base broadened, it would have a net positive effect on the state's economy."

Scarpinato comments, "No, pigs haven't learned to fly," and qualifies the agreement by saying that's about the only thing GI likes about the Dem's budget proposal.

Yesterday I read an op ed by GI's Darcy Olsen in the Wall Street Journal objecting to local governments subsidizing businesses with huge tax breaks to lure them into their communities. I'll admit I'm not well versed on the subject, but whenever I see businesses blackmailing cities into cutting lucrative tax deals, I always imagine the corporate execs laughing hysterically. "Look at what those suckers gave us this time!" they say between guffaws. Which means, I agree in priniciple with Olsen. I think the giveaways are a bad idea.

Those pigs must have found themselves a trampoline or something. If they're not flying, they're jumping pretty darn high.

I wonder. When partisanship shoots into hyperspace as it's done recently -- I can't remember when Ds and Rs have been more divided -- is it possible the acceleration can make the whole thing crash through some kind of space-time continuum and turn into post partisanship? I know about politics and strange bedfellows. But when Cheney advocates for gay marriage (for personal reasons, but still), then Ted Olson and David Boies, the two lawyers who fought each other in the 2000 post election free-for-all in Florida, have joined forces in the same cause, you've got to wonder. It's either left and right ideologies which normally move further and further apart bending around and meeting each other at the ends, or it's the creation of a sensible middle that looks at issues on a case by case basis rather than sticking to straight party lines. I would say Obama's budding education policy might be an example of a sensible middle looking for ideas that work instead of using a partisan litmus test. We may be seeing a trend here. Dare I say a promising trend?

Huppenthal vs. The Law

by David Safier
Craig at Random Musings has pulled an excerpt from the Secretary of State's candidate handbook that makes it look like Huppenthal is playing fast and loose with the resign to run law by collecting signatures for Ed Supe before January, 2010, while he's still in the Senate.

4. Statement of Organization OR $500 Threshold Exemption Statement.
A Statement of Organization registering the candidate’s campaign committee OR a $500 Threshold Exemption Statement must be filed before making any expenditures, accepting any contributions, distributing any campaign literature or circulating any petitions. If the candidate has an exploratory committee open at the time of filing, then the candidate, chairman and treasurer must file an amended Statement of Organization to change the committee to a candidate’s campaign committee.

Huppenthal is circulating petitions while he's still in the exploratory phase. That looks like it's in conflict with the rule.

Huppenthal collecting signatures?

by David Safier
I'd only heard about this second hand, so I didn't post about it, but now the Arizona Guardian has an article saying,

Sen. John Huppenthal has been collecting signatures for a campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction in violation of state election law.

I don't have one of those pricey subscriptions to the Guardian, so I can't give you details. But my second hand source told me about a friend seeing Huppenthal walking around with signature petitions. This creates a bit of a problem for him. He can form an exploratory committee while he's still in office, but he can't actively campaign for office until his current term is a year from expiration.

Anyone have more information on this?

An interview with Penny Kotterman, candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction

by David Safier
The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction promises to be a bit more high profile in 2010 than it usually is, with education funding and legislation in the news every day. Two Democrats have filed for the position: Penny Kotterman and Jason Williams. Williams ran last time and lost to Tom Horne, who was the incumbent. This time there's no incumbent, which levels the playing field. Kotterman is going after the position for the first time.

I offered both candidates the opportunity to answer identical questions I emailed to them. Kotterman took me up on the offer. One of the people running Williams campaign said Williams chose not to respond at this time. I'm posting Kotterman's complete answers to my questions, a luxury possible on the web. The beginning of the interview is on the front page. You can link to the rest.

I had a chance to meet with Kotterman and found her to be serious, knowledgeable and personable, and someone with a vast and varied resume. She has 30 years of experience in various aspects of public education. She began as a high school English and Journalism teacher (two areas I taught in as well). She went into Special Education and ended up teaching students at all grade levels, K-12.

Kotterman became involved in the AEA (Arizona Education Association) and served as its president, meaning she had experience managing a large organization and interacting regularly with state government, including 2 governors and 3 Superintendents of Public Instruction.

Now, I'll let her speak for herself.

Q: Why are you running for Superintendent of Public Instruction?

I believe it is time to change the conversation about public education. The Superintendent of Public Instruction needs to be an educational leader, armed with a depth of knowledge gained over a lifetime of experience in education, not a politician with an ideological formula gained over a lifetime of running for office. We need to move from polarizing political stances to conversations and solutions about what Arizona students need to be successful in the world they will face. High standards and high expectations for our schools, our teachers and our students are essential to our success. In order to be sure we are not just engaging in rhetoric, we also need to talk about the importance of investing in our schools for the future and providing the resources our children need to be competitive and successful. I believe I have the experience, dedication, passion, skill and knowledge to serve this state as a true educational leader and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Q: What experience and qualifications do you bring to the position?

I have dedicated my entire career to public education for the last 30 years. I have lived and worked in Arizona since 1984. I began teaching at Manual High School in Peoria, Illinois in 1978 and I was a classroom teacher and teacher mentor for 18 years, teaching special education and English, Language Arts and Reading. While I spent most of my career in 6-8 grades, I have taught students at all grade levels. I hold six teaching certificates in Arizona, including two administrative certificates. During the course of my years in public education I served eight years as Vice President and then President of the Arizona Education Association (AEA). During that time I worked with three Superintendents of Public Instruction and two Governors and served on several appointed policy commissions, task forces and committees for the Arizona Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Governor’s Office. After my tenure at the AEA, I worked as an independent consultant crafting education policy on topics such as teacher quality, performance based compensation, teacher evaluation, and student achievement and assessment. I have served on national committees related to education issues and presented at a number of national and international education symposiums and conferences in the last 15 years, including England and China. Since 2006 I have worked for the Arizona K-12 Center (Northern Arizona University) as the Associate Director of New Programs and Policy. In this position I developed the foundation of the Master Teacher program, a statewide mentoring program for new teachers. I also develop and manage professional development programs, report on policy related to teacher quality and professional development, and provide guidance and support to our Center and other entities on teacher quality and its impact on student achievement. I understand a very wide range of policy issues impacting children and students from all areas of our state and nation, and have dealt with many of them first hand. My experience in the classroom and my history of successfully engaging education policy makers on complex policy issues gives me the experience, knowledge and skill for this position. I bring tremendous passion, understanding, creativity and innovation to this very important work.

Democrats' Citizenship Will Be Tested - oh, and Mike Returns

by Michael Bryan

The Obama Administration will test Democrats' in ways that being the loyal opposition during the lost Bush years never could.

We were righteous. We were powerless. We were vindicated. We were innocent. Now, with Obama in the Oval and Democrats in utter control of Congress, we are none of those things. Suddenly, the Democratic Party and its elected officials can shape the world; the question now arises, what happens when what is created is not to our liking?

We knew what to do when the detested Bush and his party of greed and hypocrisy were in charge: march, organize, shout, condemn, etc. But what shall Democrats do when they disagree whole-heartedly with what the Democratic caucus and President Obama are up to?

The temptation is to become apologists for their actions. Research has shown clearly that partisans, confronted with facts that demonstrate hypocrisy by one of their own, will rationalize it away - smooth it over mentally to make it more comfortable. It is much harder to remain open-minded, cleave to your values, and condemn those actions.

Rationalizing away uncomfortable facts is what partisans and politicians do. Making compromises, seeing the other side, achieving what seems possible: this is the role of politicians.

Following your conscience, articulating marginalized (i.e., rationalized away) views, and demanding what you believe is right - even if what is right seems impossible: this is the role of a citizen. Many of us who believed naively that everything would be fine once Democrats were in charge are now going to have our ability to put our citizenship ahead of our partisanship severely tested.

AfPak, detainees, torture prosecutions, Abu photos, Congressional investigations, mountaintop removal, etc.: there is fault out there to find.

There are many very difficult problems that have been left for our creaky and balky political system to deal with. And like it or not, fair or not, Democrats have been left with the responsibility and duty to try to address these many complex and intractable problems. I believe that, within the constraints of their roles, our representatives in Congress and our President will attempt in good faith to resolve these many problems - and frequently they will get it dead wrong. What to do?

I believe that those of who have the interest and inclination to follow public affairs should react as citizens, not just as partisans. We should not rationalize and defend. We should oppose, and explain why.

I write this defense of citizenship because, obviously, I find myself frequently in disagreement with the decisions taken by the elected representatives of my party, including my President. That doesn't mean I don't support my party, or that I wish others to take power instead; it means that as a citizen, I feel it my duty to explain why I think they are wrong, and not to rationalize away my discomfort at finding myself at odds with my faction.

With this ideal of citizenship foremost on my mind, I once again take up my pen. Some of you might have noticed that I have written infrequently on this blog over the past several months. The reason is that I discovered, in the rudest, most abrupt fashion, that I have a heart condition. I needed all my energy to heal, return to normal life, and adjust to managing the problem. Even now, daily life frequently takes everything I have, leaving nothing for this forum. But I hope that as I recover and gain momentum, I will more frequently be a contributor to this forum, rather than mainly an enthusiastic and grateful reader.

David Safier and Arizona Blue Meanie, along with the occasional contributions of a few others, have exceeded my wildest expectations. They have more than filled in, they have transformed and enriched this blog. My most heart-felt thanks to them. Readership is higher than it has ever been while not in the thick of an election cycle. If fact, I imagine that, to many readers, they are the blog - not I. And that's wonderful.

It is perhaps the most satisfying thing about any endeavor to see it grow beyond you. This blog is no longer just about me; it is a forum that has found purpose beyond merely serving as a conduit for my own opinions. I welcome and embrace that. Of course, my opinion will still appear here, but I hope that so will those of others who are deeply concerned about public policy and have a desire to reach out to Arizona progressive community.

Are liberals and conservatives born, not made?

by David Safier
All socio-psychological studies should be taken with shakers full of salt. They're proven, argued over and disproven over and over again. That being said, here's another study that tries to get at basic traits that make one person a liberal and another a conservative.

In the past, I've posted about similar studies. They've found that conservatives frighten more easily than liberals, based on their startle reflexes (Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff when Powell was Secretary of State, says Cheney is a very, very fearful individual). Also that conservatives are more comfortable with things divided into clear categories while liberals are more comfortable with shades of gray. And conservatives tend to have neater desks and more cleaning supplies at hand than liberals.

All vast generalizations, of course, all open to question. Nevertheless . . .

Nicholas Kristof has a column that adds to the list of differences. He cites studies that say conservatives are stronger on upholding authority, and they are more easily disgusted than liberals.

When the question is, "Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?" liberals tend to say, Sure, while conservatives say, No, not even with permission, not even in jest.

When the question is, "Does it disgust you to touch a faucet in a public restroom or accidentally sip from an acquaintance's drink?" conservatives are more likely than liberals to say, Yes, that's disgusting.

If these are true, they may explain a few things. If you combine conservatives' fearfulness with their respect for authority, you can understand why the Republican Party is the "daddy party," with forceful leaders who play to people's fears and promise to protect them from the ever present threats posed by powerful enemies.

Conservatives' heightened disgust factor could help explain their unwillingness to tolerate people and behaviors that seem strange to them, especially if the strange people and behaviors can be construed as deviant. The somewhat playful Republican Us/Them dichotomy that makes fun of arugula eating, latte drinking, chablis drinking liberals makes sense in that context. It could explain the loathing many conservatives show toward illegal immigrants. It might even mean that homophobia among conservatives is amplified because the thought of different sexual practices triggers feelings of physical disgust, which would make it harder to be tolerant or accepting.

Take these as weekend musings, not as declarations of strongly held beliefs on my part. Like a good liberal, I see the world in shades of gray, so I don't think there are strict dichotomies between people who adhere to the two ideologies,any more than there are clear separations between the feelings and attitudes of men and women. Nevertheless, it's something to mull over.

Imagine Munger as Governor

by David Safier
John Munger is playing coy about his gubernatorial aspirations. But there's got to be a reason he's working so hard to dump his old semi-hysterical, Republican-talking-points persona and recreate himself as a visionary.

Munger created an imaginearizona.com website (Full name across the top bar: Imagine Arizona - State of Arizona Public Policy - John Munger). It's a PAC, and Munger is Chairman. And today he has his second recent visionary op ed in the Star (he wrote another one awhile ago), this time about my favorite subject, education. His co-author is Lisa Graham Keegan, past Arizona Ed Supe, big promoter of charters and vouchers and McCain's education advisor in his presidential bid.

So what's Munger/Keegan's visionary educational idea? Here's a hint: the column should have a huge asterisk with a note at the bottom: See Matthew Ladner. It's all Ladner, all the time. You've read every one of the ideas here on BfA in Ladner's own words.

Note to Munger: The other John -- Lennon, that is -- may have cowritten songs with McCartney, but he never cribbed straight from Paul's playbook.

Check these ideas from Munger's column against the ideas you've seen Ladner express here.

• How much does Arizona spend per student? $9,707. Check.
• Who's got the best education for the least money? Florida. Check.
• Whose interference gets in the way of schools improving performance? Teachers' unions. Check. ("Imagine no more unions. It's easy if you try.")
• What do we need and how do we get it? We need great teachers, and we get them by paying them six figure salaries. Check and check.
• How do we give teachers high salaries without increasing school budgets? Increase class size. Check. ("Imagine crowded classrooms. It isn't hard to do.")

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
Munger for Governor -- c'mon, it'll be fun."

How easy was that, John? I could have written that op ed for you, it was so familiar. I almost expected you to address me by name and accuse me of clinging to my teddy bear, like Matthew does when I tell him his $9,500 figure is the exclusive province of G.I. and the politicians who love it. (Next on Oprah: G.I. and the politicians who love it. Let's find out if they can break the cycle of dependency.)

Another note to Munger: While Ladner's ideas, laid out in his New Millenium Schools pamphlet, make sense as a small scale experiment at a charter school, it's a ludicrous concept on a statewide scale, and if you're looking at a run for governor, you need to think large scale. But keep pushing the idea, John, and be sure to remind voters you want to crowd more students in classrooms so you can pay the teachers more. Here's an idea. Call them Rock Star Teachers. Kinda like Jack Black in "School of Rock." That's sure to win the voters over.

Give him liberty and taxes?

by David Safier (TASL)
Colin Powell saying "Americans do want to pay taxes for services" is one thing. But North Carolina's Patrick McHenry, the Deputy Republican Whip? Before I launch into his quote, here are a few items from his biography on his official website.

Recognized as a leader of the conservative movement in America, Patrick McHenry is the Chairman of the House Conservatives Fund.  He shares the most conservative voting record in Congress on family values issues, according to National Journal.  Having never voted for a tax increase in his career, Congressman McHenry is continually recognized as a “Hero of the Taxpayer” by Americans for Tax Reform.

So what's this in a Time article?

Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."

OK, so he's not calling for a tax hike, but he doesn't seem to think much of all the "socialists want to raise our taxes" talk either.

I had to check to make sure this isn't an Onion parody. Nope, it's the real deal. Because look what's later in the same article. Joe the Plumber quitting the party?

"Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits."

I'm rendered [practically] speechless. (Hat tip to Talking Points Memo.)

Colin Powell, another tax-and-spend liberal commie socialist

by David Safier (TASL)
General Colin Powell, former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for a couple of Republican presidents (can't use too many titles at a moment like this), has a few choice words for the Republican Party

"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." [bold face added]

Pay taxes for services? You damn socialist! Next you'll say the rich should pay their fair share and that we should redistribute the wealth a bit.

Quick, someone call Joe the Plumber. We need an intervention!

LD-27 rally against ed cuts Saturday; Organizing for America Listening Tour Monday, Tuesday

by David Safier
Here are a few things you might want to be a part of. First a protect education rally Saturday.

Democratic lawmakers from District 27 in partnership with the Tucson Education Association will hold a rally Saturday in Tucson to support and protect education and jobs. 

Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson (District 27) invites students, parents, teachers, administrators and the general public to attend and support education at the SPF (Student Protection Factor) 2009 Rally. The SPF rally advocates for S- Save our teachers, P-Protect our children and F- Fund education.
 When: Saturday, May 2, 10 to 11:30 a.m.
Where: Joaquin Murrieta Park, 1400 N. Silverbell Road

Then a 3 stop listening tour in the Tucson area by Organizing for America Monday and Tuesday. The group, which says it is "the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) grassroots project to support President Obama's agenda," has a field director in Arizona, Sara El-Amine, and she's holding events across the state.

The overall purpose is to continue to engage our supporters in a dialogue about the issues most important to them - at a national level (healthcare, energy, education, etc.) as well as issues specific to their own communities. And to continue providing them with the tools they need to keep these conversations going across kitchen tables, on front porches and in their own neighborhoods. The events will also serve as an opportunity for local supporters and volunteers to meet our newly-hired field director for Arizona and offer ideas about what organizing approaches might work best in their communities.

Here are the specifics about the three Tucson area events.

• Monday, May 4, 4-6pm, UA Ventana Room, 4th Floor, Student Union Memorial Center, 1303 E. University Blvd.
• Monday, May 4, 7-9pm, Pima Community College, Northwest Campus Community Room, 7600 North Shannon Road.
• Tuesday, May 5, 7-9pm, Pima County Community College-- Amythest Room, 1255 N. Stone Ave.

Irony alert: the guy behind the Marana hit piece

by David Safier
Tedski has a follow up on the hit piece sent out last Friday against Kelle Maslyn, who is one of four candidates running for two seats on the Marana Town Council. The head of People for an Independent Marana, the group that created the flier, is Bruce Ash.

The mailer complained about outside interests trying to get Maslyn elected. Turns out Bruce Ash is a Tucson resident. And far from being "independent," Ash is the national committeeman for the Arizona Republican Party.

Ash qualifies as "People" (or at least, "Person"), but "Independent" and "Marana" are stretches. I guess one out of three ain't bad. Oh wait, yes it is.

Is Al Melvin trying to "confuse his liberal constituents"?

by David Safier

I was one of many people who was floored when Al Melvin was given the absolute lowest rating in the Senate by the very conservative Pachyderm Coalition. The Pachyderms went so far as to call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only), which is the vilest epithet you can throw around in those circles.

Surprise was also registered on the conservative blog, Gila Courier, and more than a little derision of the Pachyderms for putting Melvin far below the Republicans it refers to as "all four remaining members of the Napolitano Eight."

I guess Howard Levine, the Pachyderm treasurer, was a bit miffed, since he chaired the committee running the evaluation. In a string of comments at the end of Gila's blog post, he made it clear that Melvin sponsored and supported "nanny state bills" purely to win votes from moderates. The portrait he paints of Melvin's motives is less than flattering.

Al Melvin is apparently trying to position himself to head off any liberal opposition to his 2010 reelection bid.

[snip]

I discerned Al Melvin’s motives by listening to his explanation of why he sponsored the bills he sponsored. He could have pulled these bills with a resulting improvement in his rating, but he adamantly refused to because these bills position him well with local newspapers and other liberals. This is based on a personal conversation with Al Melvin - not just a guess at his motives.

[snip]

Just because Al Melvin sponsored them to confuse his liberal constituents (Al’s word - not mine) so they won’t think he’s too conservative, does that suddenly make these bills “Republican” this year? In case you’re wondering, the answer is NO.

[Bold face added]

It kinda makes ya think, don't it? Does Melvin care about stopping people from using cell phones in cars, or smoking when children are in the car, or letting people ride in the backs of pickups, or are these just tactics someone helped him devise (the name Constantin Querard comes to mind) so Melvin has an answer when people say he's too conservative?

"Stronger ADP" looking stronger still

by David Safier

A group of Young Dems formed a group, A Stronger ADP (Arizona Democratic Party), in the weeks before the recent State Democratic Meeting where Don Bivens was elected Chair, after Paul Eckerstrom had been elected,then resigned . . . If you don't know the whole tangled tale, you can catch up on it elsewhere.

Anyway, Stronger ADP, whose members decided to cloak themselves in anonymity, created a detailed, thoughtful document about changes they hoped to see in the state party. Then, days before the meeting, they revealed their identities.

They attended the state meeting filled with trepidation. To their surprise, they were greeted with support from rank and file Dems, elected officials and party officials. The enthusiastic response doesn't surprise me -- I heard what people were saying -- but it pretty much floored them.

Now it looks like the group might be meeting with Bivens some time soon, or so rumor has it. It will be interesting to hear what comes of the tête-à-tête, if it happens.

Just a personal note. These folks represent the future of the party. I don't know if "the Obama generation" is the right term for them, but that's as close as I can come. Their generation deserves a seat at the table. And this specific group of individuals has definitely earned that seat.

Bob Gilby files for LD-27

by David Safier

Bob Gilby has filed all his candidate papers and is ready to run for one of two open State Rep slots in LD-27. He tells me he's running clean. He raised his $3,500 Clean Elections seed money in 24 days, with an average donation of $50. (Full Disclosure: I was one of the contributors.)

So far as I know, he's the first and only candidate who has filed in his district.

If AZ Republicans can talk about tax hikes . . .

by David Safier (TASL)

Our accidental Gov said she's considering a billion dollars worth of tax hikes. A few other Republicans are actually nodding their heads in reluctant agreement. So far as I know, angry mobs have not stormed the Capitol with torches and pitchforks demanding the Governor's head -- though some Republican legislators sound pretty pissed.

According to the Capitol Times' Yellow Sheet, Arizonans aren't anti tax these days.

According to one source, the polling on the tax increase question shows strong support, especially when the issue is framed as supporting education - and full-day K, in particular, was reportedly polling above 75% positive.

75% is a very impressive number. It's almost like, a party could run on the idea of increasing taxes for education and win.

Hmmm. A party could run on the idea of increasing taxes for education. And win.

Maybe I've missed something. Where are the Democrats on the tax issue? Hiding behind a saguaro, watching and waiting to make sure it's safe to say, "Maybe we could consider a teeny weeny little tax hike, if it's OK with you"?

If the Dems want to win some local and statewide races in 2010, they'd better get ahead of the curve and lead on this issue, not play it safe and reveal themselves to be cowards.

I know it's tough to say you think we need more taxes. It makes you look . . . I don't know . . . Progressive. Liberal. But it's not 2004 anymore. The world is a different place than it was when Kerry was running for President. The progressive/liberal perspective is overtaking the conservative way of viewing the world. Even Brewer has seen the writing on the wall and knows she's got to seem open to tax hikes if she has any hope of winning in 2010.

Arizona is ready. Is the Democratic Party?

The rest of the story on "Stronger ADP," and the ADP

by David Safier

Dawn Teo, Mesa resident and writer for Huffington Post, wrote an excellent, detailed story on HuffPo about the recent travails in the Arizona Democratic Party and the origins of Building a Stronger ADP, whose suggestions for changes in the ADP have taken on increasing importance as Saturday's meeting approaches.

I won't try to excerpt Teo's article. People interested in the future of the party should read the whole thing.

"Stronger ADP" authors reveal their identities

by David Safier

A few days ago I spotlighted a new website, A Stronger ADP. The authors wrote a lengthy and thoughtful document, A New Way Forward (you can get the pdf here). The problem for many people, including me, was that the authors chose to remain anonymous.

No longer. They are six Young Democrats who talked among themselves about the need for change in the Arizona Democratic Party, drafted their plan, ran it by others (I wasn't one of them) and published it.

I think they were concerned their youth would make others dismiss their efforts. My response is exactly the opposite. If the future leaders of the Democratic party have the desire and the intelligence to put together a document like this, that encourages me about the vibrancy of the party. And the fact that these folks are newcomers,not people who have been regularly demanding party reform, means others should take their suggestions that much more seriously -- not accept the ideas at face value, of course, but use them as springboards for discussion about the directions we should head as a party.

Here is the statement they posted on their website last night:

When we posted this report last Friday, we did it with the hope that, in true Democratic form, discussion would focus on the ideas in the plan rather than its authors. We are encouraged by the significant discussion that has already occurred, and the large amount of support behind this plan. Many supporters have contacted us and urged us to sign our names. We hope that by doing so, we can push discussion further, and keep it focused on strengthening the Arizona Democratic Party.

As we have said before, we do not see this as a complete blueprint for the Party nor as merely a first draft. The Arizona Democratic Party is in need of reform; the question is how we do it. We hope that this serves as a starting point for the change we need.

Sincerely,
Sean Bowie
Joel Edman
Geoff Esposito
Matt Herlihy
Devin Mauney
Todd Phillips
Also:
1. We do not support or oppose any particular candidate for State Party Chair. 
2. We’ve read your comments and updated the message section of the plan. We intended for education, energy and infrastructure to represent the three key parts of a comprehensive economic strategy. The plan now says this explicitly.

"Building a Stronger ADP" worth a close look

by David Safier

A group emerged recently, Building a Stronger ADP, which deserves to be taken seriously. The group put together "A New Way Forward," a seven page pdf document which describes the changes these folks think the Arizona Democratic Party should make. Whether all the ideas should be implemented is secondary. This document should be a starting point for discussions all over the state, especially at the Executive Board level.

The people who put this together have decided to remain anonymous, and I will respect their decision even though I disagree. I think they should say who they are. Most people, and I include myself, are wary of supporting people who won't reveal themselves. I will say, however, any guesses you might make about who wrote this will probably be wrong. They're not the usual group of people you might describe as members of left or reform wings of the party. And that's what I find so interesting and promising.

Here is the summary of the group's recommendations at the top of the document:

I. An open and transparent hiring system for all state party employees, including Executive Director.
II. A renewed organizational focus, aimed at developing a system of priorities and guidelines that will help shape the future of the state party.
III. The formation of Project 2010, an all‐encompassing statewide voter outreach campaign that is focused on targeted voter registration, PEVL sign‐up and new PC recruitment.
IV. A strong and unified message campaign for 2010 that challenges the Republicans and in simple terms tells Arizonans what Democrats would do differently.

Nothing especially radical or surprising here. But all important. I recommend you take a look. Those of you who are attending the March 7 state meeting, take a look before you go.