Blog For Arizona

Al Melvin Throws Down in Pima County

"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

Clinton Went and Won Pennsylvania, and All I Got Was this Obama T Shirt

by David Safier

Your roving correspondent returns to Tucson, unbloodied and unbowed. Actually, I had a great time. It was almost perfect, give or take a few percentage points.

So now it's back to the education beat. Let's see, what's happened since I was gone? I hear:

• Russell Pearce wants a law that says all teachers must wear flag lapel pins, pledge allegiance to the Republican States of America, and check with him before they make any statements about the U.S., unless the statement is, "Looks like Pearce got it right again!"

• When the ELL funding bill came to Janet's desk, she said, "What bill? Do you see any bill? I don't see any bill."

• No Child Left Behind will be changed to say that, any public school that has drop outs will declare itself a failure and give all its money to private schools.

• Tom Horne plans to go all the way to the Supreme Court to push the idea that people who know how to say anything in Spanish other than "Cerveza" and "Donde esta el baño" will have to apologize publicly and commit an entire Berlitz English course to memory before a single dollar of state funds will be used to help them learn English.

I may not have all the details right. I have some catching up to do.

Clinton wins by 9.3% (Round to 9%)

by David Safier

If the numbers are there, they can be spun how you want them. The press is saying, "Hillary by 10%" because Clinton has 54.6% -- round up to 55% -- and Obama has 45.3% -- round down to 45%.

Fair enough.

But if we subtract her unrounded number from his, we get a 9.3% difference, which, since it's under 9.5, gets rounded down to 9%.

So, very legitimately, Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9%, or, if you prefer, a hair under 10%.

And, by the way, I'm not just playing with numbers. If it fit the media story, the headlines would be "Clinton a Hair Under 10%." But they like the horse race. It's good for ratings, and it's good for ad revenues. So "Clinton by 10%" it is.

But I say, it's Clinton by 9%, and I'm sticking to it. My hope was that Clinton would win by less than 10%, and that's what the numbers show.

You're off the hook, Mike. As I said, under 10, and I cover my own expenses, including taking Barack and Michelle out for dinner last night. I'm a gentleman, a man of my word.

Election Day in Philadelphia

by David Safier

A nervous morning in Philly, with poll numbers all over the place. My position is, if Clinton wins by less than 10, that's a win for Obama, since Clinton is fighting from way behind. If it's down around 6, she's in deep trouble. If she's in the 14-15 point win range, she gets to crow, and everyone will say she has the right to fight another day.

This morning we took a subway and knocked on doors in an area I would normally be wary of walking in. And as with the other days, we encountered nothing even approaching a problem, or even a genuinely negative response.

Since we've been here, we've knocked on doors in white, black and mixed low-rent neighborhoods. We've walked by people lounging on old couches on the sidewalk and hanging around outside corner markets. I would normally consider those danger signs and be sure to cross the street to put a little distance between me and potential trouble, but we got into discussions with people in those and other situations, and they were friendly, or they were combative in the "Oh, yeah, well, I'm for Hillary" kind of way.

This sounds trite, I know, but there is so much mutual misunderstanding and fear, on all sides of the racial and income spectrum, that is simply unwarranted. Some people are genuinely dangerous, but most people aren't. Granted, I wouldn't want to spend my Sunday lounging on couches on the sidewalks or hanging out in front of corner markets, but exchanging a few friendly words to indicate to each other that we're all human beings behind our differences -- damn, I wish there were a way we could manage that!

And while I'm digressing, an interesting thing about the Obama campaign is that it allows you to talk about race and other issues of ethnicity, and carry on meaningful discussions without feeling you're walking on eggshells. Yeah, I'm a Jewish white guy. Yeah, you're a black male or female. So let's see in what ways that information is significant and in what ways it's insignificant. I'll learn from what you say, and you'll learn from what I say. And we'll both develop a slightly more rounded view of the nation we live in.

Anyway, we returned to headquarters for lunch, then took some signs and walked over to Temple University for a little "visibility" -- just stand there and let people see Obama supporters, hoping some of them will think, "Oh, I almost forgot, I'd better go vote for Obama (or if I'm undecided, Obama is the last name I saw, so I think I'll vote for him)."

That was pretty boring. We returned to headquarters planning to walk another precinct, but instead we got roped into more visibility at the corner. This headquarters is at a very busy intersection (Girard and Broad, if you know Philly.) Starting at 3pm, I stood in the median and waved a sign as cars and trucks passed. I got a reasonably number of honks and waves, which I assumed were for my sign, not my good looks.

By 4pm, 15 Obama supporters were standing around the intersection with signs, and it turned into a honk-athon. It was amazing. Constant blasting of horns, like a parade. Honks from private cars and SUVs, cabs, working trucks, Post Office trucks, huge 18 wheelers with their long, deep base horns, street car drivers who opened their windows and rang their bells. It was an exhilarating madhouse. It felt like the whole world was for Obama. On that corner, it was probably 90% true.

Some polling places apparently had record turnouts -- more people by 10am than they usually have all day. One woman said she voted at 8am, and 65 people had voted before her. But other polling places reported only slightly better-than-average turnout. All this was before 5:30, when people get home from work, and the polls are open until 8.

So I'm back. I'm done for the night. Over these last few days, I've been a very small cog in a very big campaign machine. I'm pretty nervous, but I still have a bit of a buzz from that amazing honk-fest at the intersection.

I'll tell you what, Mike. If Hillary's win is in single digits, I'll absorb the cost of the trip and not turn in my expense receipts like I was planning to. And that includes the tab for Friday night after the Obama rally, when I took the whole CNN crew out for drinks. That Wolf Blitzer, let me tell you, he can really knock 'em back. He kept shouting, "Another round on Dave for the Best News Team in Television!" How could I refuse Wolf, especially after he's had a few? And by the way, he won't drink anything unless it has pineapple and a little parasol sticking out of the top.

If Hillary is in double digits, you're getting all my receipts, plus a bill for hours spent.

It's 6:30. The polls close at 8. Only time will tell.

Door Hangin' in Philadelphia

by David Safier

Another day at the storefront at Allegheny and Kennsington (Those are the cross streets, for anyone familiar with Philly). The place was packed in the morning, and when we returned at noon, we couldn't get in the door, for all the SEIU Union folks who came in to pick up door hangers and walk the city.

Door hangin' is more aerobic than knocking on doors. Power walk down the street, up the stairs, stick the hanger on the doorknob and resume power walking.

The neighborhood we walked in was just sad. Most of the brick buildings had barely serviceable doors, there were occasional gaps between them like missing teeth, and entire blocks were old, gray warehouses.

About thirty Democrats were listed at one address, which I assumed was an apartment building. Instead, it was the St. Francis Inn, a Catholic shelter that gives free meals. People who don't have a permanent address listed the Inn, I guess. We gave a few of the door hangers to the man in charge and moved on.

The energy in the Obama camp is high, though no one is projecting victory, or projecting much of anything. But incredible numbers of people are working like mad these last few days. I've seen no Clinton literature in the neighborhoods we've visited. Either they don't have the volunteers or, as word has it, her volunteers won't venture into "that sort of neighborhood." That may be Obama campaign spin, I don't know.

Tomorrow it's for all the marbles. I guess we go around and knock on doors reminding people to vote until they yell at us. Then we watch returns after 8pm, holding our collective breath.

By the way, did you know Philadelphia police use segways? It's the oddest thing. If they were faced with an unruly crowd, I imagine they'd have no need for mace, tasers or tear gas. Just ride into the crowd on segways. Everyone would be so amused, how could they cause trouble?

Sunday: Walking Philadelphia

by David Safier

Sunday morning we drove to the campaign headquarters we were sent to, a storefront that had just been opened Saturday morning to cover a lower/lower middle class neighborhood. Driving down the almost-empty streets in a strange city, where most of the stores were shuttered for Sunday with heavy metal grates (all local stores, indicating that national chains didn’t think this area worthy of setting up shop) was a bit unnerving, since we knew we would be canvassing in the area.

When we walked in the storefront, six volunteers and three organizers were setting up shop, and in a half hour, a dozen volunteers had shown up. All of us were from out of town – New York, Washington D.C., Maine, Georgia and us from Arizona, all in town to help on Obama’s campaign. One of the organizers was an American woman who lived in Switzerland and decided to return to work on the campaign. Apparently, the main downtown headquarters was swamped with volunteers, so they sent them out to the neighborhood hubs.

The first job of the morning was to stand outside churches at the end of the Sunday service and pass out a mimeographed “prayer message” from Obama. It was a general statement of faith, respectful and nondenominational. Our church was about a mile away. We walked down the semi-mean streets with their closed stores (I don’t know how “mean” the streets get in Philadelphia, but these qualified, at least in part) to a mid-sized Catholic church with a Hispanic service in the top of the church and a Vietnamese service in the bottom – reinforcing the notion that the most segregated time of the week is Sunday morning. The people who came out took the papers we handed out graciously and with smiles. They were in that receptive, post-service mood where they are open to something given to them politely. Many walked away reading the page. Unfortunately, we ran out of fliers before we ran out of congregants.

When we returned to the storefront, we were given a walking list, campaign fliers and instructions. We drove to a mainly white ethnic neighborhood, with some Hispanic and African American families as well – streets of narrow, three story brick houses joined to one another. We covered 100 homes in about three hours, a much easier feat than in Tucson, where the homes are spread apart.

This was typical Clinton country, but we were mainly treated decently. Some people who we spent time talking with admitted, after saying they were Clinton supporters, that they were a little undecided, and they were genuinely open to talking about the two candidates. My thought was, they will most likely vote for Clinton in the primary. But when Obama is the candidate (no time for uncertainty now), our talk will make it easier for them to make the transition.

And the Obama supporters were delighted to see us.

Some people said other Obama volunteers had been by Saturday ("She talked my ear off for half an hour!"). We're really blanketing the city. The Clinton campaign, which doesn’t have nearly as many on-the-ground volunteers, had driven past with a loudspeaker on a truck blasting a pro-Clinton message the day before.

We returned to the storefront to find another crop of volunteers, also out-of-towners, and hung around awhile putting “Your polling place is …” stickers on door hangers to be hung up Monday.

It’s always educational, and good for the soul, to walk in unfamiliar areas and talk with people you don’t usually talk with. Stereotypes fall and commonalities surface, for us and, I imagine, for those who we talk to.

It's Monday morning. Soon we'll go to the storefront, pick up door hangers and stroll down whatever neighborhood they pick for us. People will be at work, so we're past meet-and-greet time. It's crunch time now, to let them know we're serious about wanting their votes.

Newspaper and Advertising on the Philadelphia Campaign

by David Safier

It’s revealing to see how ads are written for different states. On television and in his fliers, Obama is featuring the hard working, middle American man and woman. A television ad has salt-of-the-earth types at gas stations complaining about gas prices. Toward the end of the ad, a few say, “That’s why I support Barack Obama. He’ll bring an end to …” The flier his campaign is dropping on doorsteps shows Obama looking at a man in a hard hat and protective goggles. The man is looking down, both determined and concerned about his future. The slogan is, “It’s time for Washington to start working for you.”

I haven’t seen any of Clinton’s campaign literature. Her strongest TV ad attacks Obama for saying she is close to lobbyists when, according to the ad, lobbyists head his campaign (or his fundraising?) in a number of states.

Both candidates, of course, also have the usual uplifting ad that is a pastiche of voice-overs and phrases from their campaign speeches.

I’m honest enough to admit that the coverage in Philly newspapers leans toward Obama (and here, I must admit, I’m contrasting myself to Clinton supporters who said the debate was balanced and informative). In one paper, the post-debate, front page banner headline read, “Viewers Upset with ABC Debate.” Another had a smaller front page headline, “ABC gets an earful after debate.” A third had an op ed, “ABC debate was trivial pursuit.”

My favorite, partisan that I am, was an op ed debunking the “elite” label placed on Obama:

“Clinton, who has racked up some $100 million by rubbing elbows with society’s upper crust, lifts her pursed lips from her crystal champagne flute long enough to call some brother from the South Side an elitist?

Are you kidding me?

McCain, who won his first election a couple of years after marrying into his wife Cindy’s vast fortune, said not one peep when his hero and fellow warmonger Dick Cheney grunted a dismissive “So?” in reaction to the overwhelming number of Americans against the Iraq war.

But Barack Obama, who turned down a whopping salary out of Harvard Law School to go back and work in Chicago’s poorest communities for peanuts is arrogant? Who comes up with this stuff?”

I imagine if I were in Pittsburg or some of the smaller areas in western Pennsylvania, I would see a different kind of coverage.

On the Ground in Philadelphia, Day 3

by David Safier

Here's a next-morning post about Friday.

• 11:30: Went to downtown headquarters and picked up a stack of fliers about the big Independence Mall rally along with a handful of posters. We walked the mean streets of Philadelphia's Center City (OK, it was 70 degrees and the streets were very friendly, but where's the drama in that?) passing out fliers and giving posters to people who asked for them. I felt like I was hawking half price drinks for the disco around the corner. (Did I say "hawking"? Did I say "disco"? Remind me, what decade is this?)
  
• 1:00: Ate lunch at a Vietnamese restaurant in Chinatown (What a wonderful country we live in!)
  
• 2:30: Arrived at Independence Mall, the grassy area between all the big Independence/Constitution/Liberty Bell stuff, walked past the security guards and asked how we could help. An organizer said, "Field the people walking in asking questions so we can get work done. Here are a bunch of orange tickets you can give them, then tell them to wait at 5th and Market." We said we didn't have tickets. She said, "Here are a couple of blue ones for you. They get you in first." Yeah!
  
• 2:45: Acting very official, I went up to people who looked lost. Most of them were overjoyed when I gave them tickets, though a few tried to talk me into blue tickets, which I didn't have. I felt like the guy in front of Studio 54 holding the rope, deciding who could get in. (Studio 54? Again with the last-century allusions!)
  
• 4:00: All the tickets are gone, and the blue ticket people are lining up to get it in at 5:30. We happen to be at the front of the line, so we stay there.
  
• 5:30: We're among the first 150 people in through the airport-quality security. They even confiscated our water bottles, and it's over 80 degrees. We end up in the third row of people standing behind the barricades next to the podium, about 15 feet away from where Obama will speak. Around 7:30, we think.
  
• 7:00: So many people have filled in behind us, we can't see the back. A volunteer coordinator pitches the crowd about the need for people to work the streets Saturday through Tuesday.
  
• 7:30: The singer from the Black Eyed Peas who did the "Yes We Can" video sang a drop-dead gorgeous number accompanied by an acoustic guitar, like in the video.
  
• 8:15: The crowd is hot, tired, and frustrated with waiting. Chants of O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA! spring up. We're in the third loop of the 45 minute mix tape, and between songs, people chant, "No More Music! No More Music!" To no avail. A few people mutter, "If he doesn't show up soon, I'm voting for Clinton." "No, you're not," another says. "I know, but where the hell is he?" By this time, one little girl has had an asthma attack, four people have grown faint from the heat and lack of water, and one older woman has to be taken away in a stretcher. And that's just around me.  The people around us are great, by the way. As tired as I am standing there waiting, at least I'm in good company.
  
• 8:45: Obama shows up. 15 feet away. His face in the harsh TV lights is sculptural, full of planes and angles. And his speech is marvelous, wrapping the theme of independence from the British (we're in Independence Mall, right?) around the idea of breaking away from the business-as-usual traditions of Washington. The crowd is with him 100 percent. Occasionally he has to say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute," to quiet us down so he can finish his thought. He gets in some forceful digs at Clinton, not personal attacks, but comments about her acting like Republican-lite in the campaign. Very effective.
  
• 9:15: Obama shakes hands, working the line in front of us. We start to get crushed in the people crowding forward. I understand how people can get trampled at rock concerts. But as we work our way out of the crowd, people gladly let us pass, hoping to get closer.
  
• 11:00: I watch the local news and learn that 35,000 people were at the rally, about double what the campaign set as its success number. The crowd stretched for two city blocks. I feel a weary satisfaction that I was part of it all.

On the Ground in Philadelphia, Day 2

by David Safier

Here's your at-the-scene correspondent, giving you the news from Philadelphia.

Last night I ate at a 5-star restaurant. Washed my scampi down with a $300 cabernet. God, it's great to be on the Blog for Arizona expense account! I'll give you the receipts when I get back, Mike. (Mike? Are you there, Mike?)

I spent a few hours at the downtown Obama headquarters, phoning and writing letters. Because it was mid-day and mid-week, we were calling the 60-80 year old set, because they were most likely to be home. That's Hillary country, and more people said they supported her than Barack. But a reasonably number were for Barack, and a surprising number were undecided. I expect the undecideds to go for Clinton when they hit the polls (though I may have convinced a few to lean toward Obama), but it's encouraging that so many are ready to vote for either candidate, because it means that if (I mean, when) Obama is the candidate, it won't be too hard for Clinton supporters to change sides.

The Philly papers played last night's debate pretty evenly. They didn't amplify the "gotcha" tone of the moderators, which is good, since the gotcha-over-substance quality of the questions was pretty vile. Maybe the media won't be all Weatherman, all the time.

The Weekly endorsed Obama, as did the tabloid-sized daily, the Philadelphia News. I don't know if the major paper, the Enquirer, has endorsed. (This is the cover of the Philadelphia Weekly).

Friday, 6pm, there will be a big Obama rally in the area around Independence Hall. They're hoping for a huge turnout, which is probable. The Philadelphia area belongs to Obama. Other parts of the state lean toward Clinton.

On another topic, two Philadelphia charter schools had their contracts taken away, for a variety of reasons having to do with student performance, fiscal reporting, etc. Another is being looked into for possible serious overcompensation of its CEO and his family. Those of you who have been around for awhile, when was the last time an Arizona charter school had its charter taken away? We have more charter schools than any state in the country -- we gave away charters like free popcorn -- and it's unlikely that all of them are spending their money wisely and educating their students well. Yet we don't hear about oversight, because there isn't any. (Part of the reason for the careful oversight here is, the Philly schools were deemed so bad, they were taken over by the state a few years ago. So it makes sense they'd be keeping careful track of how things are going.)

Convention Highlights continued

Democratic National Convention 2008 by Pat Canady

As DNC Chairperson, Howard Dean, said: "There is no question that the West is important to the future of the Democratic Party.  The recent Democratic gains in the West exemplify the principle that when we show up and ask for people's votes and talk about what we stand for, we can win in any part of the country. Additionally, we have a number of strong Democratic leaders in the West who will be a part of showcasing the vision of Democratic leadership for America as we introduce the next Democratic President in the Rocky Mountains." (Does he know where they are?)

It is about time that we acknowledge that sound decision making and astute politicians do reside in our part of the country. Arizona's Governor Napolitano demonstrates the essence of being both a farsighted and state-of-the-art politician. She is one of the reasons that I feel proud to be an Elected Delegate from Arizona.  I am absolutely looking forward to the State Convention and first Delegate meeting on April 26th. I hope to have exciting information to share with you the following week.

There are three standing committees at the Democratic National Convention. 1.) The Credentials Committee; 2.) The Platform Committee; and 3.) The Rules Committee. My preference would be to have the opportunity to sit in on the Credentials Committee this year. They may have the deciding factor regarding the "hot issues" of Michigan and Florida's status. The following are facts available at this time - starting with the Credentials Committee:

Elected to Chair is Alexis Herman, former US Secretary of Labor (1997-2001), DNC Chief of Staff, and CEO of the 1992 Democratic National Convention. She has served as Co-Chair of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing an Scheduling. Co-chair James Roosevelt, Jr. is President and CEO of Tufts Health Plan (HMO) in MA and was formally Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy of the Social Security Admin.  under Clinton. He is the Chief Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts Democratic Party and Co-chair of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The third Co-Chair is Eliseo Roues-Arroyo, a native of Puerto Rico serving as Executive Assistant to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Senate Minority Leader Migues Hernandez-Agosto and Delegate to Congress Antonio J. Colorado. Eliseo is former Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico and presently a member of the DNC.  I don't know about you but this group could be stacked - maybe it's my imagination.

The Credential Committee is charged with coordinating issues around the selection of delegates and alternates to the Convention and will likely meet in the summer. The committee will issue a report that is the first official item of business at the Convention in August.

As there is lots of info on the other committees, I'll quit and let you read and discuss more interesting blogs!!! Have a good week.

Fact Checking John Munger

Posted by: AZBlueMeanie

How many readers actually watch the monthly "Face Off" segment between John Munger and Vince Rabago on Arizona Illustrated on KUAT?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Just a handful of political junkies.  In case you missed the April segment, you can catch it on line at http://tv.azpm.org/kuat/segments/2008/4/14/kuat-the-face-off/

I feel oddly compelled to watch Arizona Illustrated just to see how my tax dollars are at work at PBS.  I am also curious to see what the legendary host Bill Buckmaster deems to be the most important political topics of the day.  I am often disappointed.

It has become difficult to watch the "Face Off" segment because of the disingenuous responses of John Munger and the physically hyperactive antics he engages in while ticking off the GOP talking points of the day that he has barely memorized well enough to do the segment.  Sometimes it looks as if his head is going to explode when he really gets agitated.  Calm down and take a deep breath, John.  You are demonstrating to the viewers that you lack the right temperament and emotional stability to serve as our next governor.

Munger habitually ticks off the GOP talking points of the day and self-proclaims them to be "just the facts."  Since no one knows in advance what wild-eyed craziness Munger is going to say before he actually says it, both Bill Buckmaster and Vince Rabago are at a disadvantage to challenge him on his alleged "facts" in real time. Munger's antics have undermined the intended purpose of the "Face Off" segment, i.e., a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the political issues of the day.  The viewers are left misled or confused by the bogus "facts" cited in the disingenuous responses of Munger.

So as a public service to the political junkies who actually watch the "Face Off" segment, I will endeavor to provide you with a fact check of John Munger after each monthly segment.

Let's go to the video... 

Who Gave the Green Light to the Tim Bee Ad?

by David Safier

If you're hoping to get an answer to the headline question, "Who gave the green light to the Tim Bee ad?" you won't find it here. Sorry. Today I tried, unsuccessfully, to answer it.

I called the office of Joel Wirth, the Chief Financial Officer of Chandler School District, whose office number is listed on the Arizona Secretary of State's website as the contact for the Educational Financial Reform Group. That's the lobbying group behind the ad "thanking" Tim Bee for being a friend of education. I left a message on his machine and talked to his assistant, who said he would return my call. He hasn't.

To be fair, Mr. Wirth is probably a busy guy, and he may not consider me worthy of an immediate response. But in Daniel Scarpinato's original article on the topic in the Star, he wrote, "The spokesman for the Chandler Unified School District, which oversees the finances and founded the group, did not return phone calls." So this seems like a pattern of ducking questions. And in the long run, he's not doing himself any favors. He's raising suspicions about his actions, and my hunch is that true impetus behind the ad lies elsewhere.

Since I lack the hard information I wish I had, I'm going to use my 30 years of experience in public schools to take a venture into "creative journalism," which means I'm going to make stuff up that I think explains how this ad came about. If I'm wrong, I will be happy to have someone correct me, and I will gladly print the real story. That's what I want, the real story.

I don't think the school districts that pooled their lobbying funds to create EFRG had the intent of skirting the law to create a political ad for Bee, even though that was the result. That's not the way school district administrators work, in my experience. They're looking out for what they think is best for their districts. Even though I disagreed with my administration on a regular basis, I never saw them pull this kind of a stunt.

The districts pooled their money to lobby for the Career Ladder Program for their districts. It was a reasonable investment -- a few thousand dollars each with a possible return of higher salaries for their teachers.

They hired the lobbying firm, Public Policy Partners, headed by John Kaites, to carry the ball. Kaites is an ex-legislator who is a big Tim Bee supporter. Here's where I think the problem arose. Kaites decided he would try for a two-fer. First, he would score the Career Ladder legislation for the districts, which is what he was paid to do. Then he would give Bee all kinds of public recognition that would help him in his campaign against Giffords. I have no idea whether Bee had any knowledge of what was going on.

I can almost hear Kaites saying to EFRG, "Get some of your people up to Phoenix. Bee will address them. We'll film it, cut it into an ad and give Bee a big public thank you. It'll build you some good will you can use to your advantage in the future." The district reps said, "Sure," and the ad came together.

I doubt the school people considered the ramifications of creating a political ad with school monies, which is a violation of state law. If they had, I think they would have nixed the idea. School districts tend to be very sensitive about bad press, so I can't imagine they would take this kind of risk knowingly. Actually, it was Kaites' job to warn them of the danger and caution against the ad. Instead, I think he pushed it, then had the clever idea of leaving the group's name off the ad so there were no fingerprints.

Let me repeat, the sequence of events I've presented is pure conjecture. But it fits the facts. I hope someone will come forward and clear this up. I don't think this story is over yet. We need the people involved to clarify what parts they played in this ill-conceived, publicly funded campaign ad for Bee.

Emerson, Obama and Clinton

by David Safier

I'm taking another Sunday stroll through Meta-education Land (I'm planning to suggest Meta-Education Land as a new ride at Disneyland. The thrills! The Chills! The Erudition!). Today I'm taking a digression to one of my favorite essays of all time, Ralph Waldo Emerson's "The American Scholar."

I was reminded of the essay when someone on a cable news show mentioned the historical uniqueness of the Democratic presidential primary, where the two candidates left standing happen to be African American in one case and female in the other. The commenter said something to this effect: "We have to think of these two, not as an African American or a woman running for president, but presidential candidates who happen to be African American and female."

I thought these were wise words. Don't place Obama's and Clinton's racial and gender identities as their primary identifiers. Make them secondary descriptors. Say, "Oh, by the way, Barack Obama, the presidential candidate with the following qualifications and positions on the issues . . . is also black," not "Here is this black guy who thinks he can be president." The same for Clinton. Put her positions and qualifications first, and her gender as something you would mention in the same way you say McCain is from Arizona. It's relevant, but not critical to whether she is qualified to be president.

In "The American Scholar," Emerson talks about the fable that there is actually one "Man" (He uses the prefeminist term "Man" to describe humanity, as did everyone at the time, rather than "Person,"), and we are all portions of that one being -- fingers and toes, necks and stomachs, as it were. And he regrets that we refuse to acknowledge our Oneness but instead have become loose appendages severed from the whole:

Unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters,--a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.

In this world of "walking monsters," the Person/Man who indulges in the noble act of farming "sinks into the farmer, instead of Man on the farm." And so it goes with others who are consumed by their professions and ignore their Human-ness: "the attorney [becomes] a statute-book; the mechanic, a machine; the sailor, a rope of a ship."

Two People, two representatives of our greater Humanity, are running to be the Democratic candidate for president. Among the characteristics of these People, one happens to have some of his ancestry going back to Africa, and the other happens to be a female. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "Which of these two People is the best Democratic choice to become the next President of the United States?" Their genders and ancestry are part of the mix, just as the fact that McCain is white and male is relevant. To deny that would be ridiculous. But they should not be the primary considerations.

Are we ready to see these two candidates as People first, as Emerson suggests we should? It is a genuine, and troubling question that, once this election is over, will continue to be discussed for decades.

Dems File Election Committee Complaint About Tim Bee Ad

by David Safier

Now this is interesting

National Democrats filed a federal complaint against state Senate President and Republican Congressional candidate Tim Bee, claiming an ad on his behalf was an illegal campaign contribution. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed the complaint with the Federal Elections Commission this week. It names a collection of school board members who paid for the ad but did not identify themselves as responsible for it.

. . .

"A reasonable person cannot possibly interpret this ad to be anything other than express advocacy," the complaint reads.
It goes on to say: "Airing in the midst of a heated campaign for United States Congress, and airing across the Congressional district and beyond a state senator's current legislative district, it purports to 'thank' a federal candidate for his involvement with a state bill that has already passed the Arizona Senate."

Stay tuned for further developments.

Convention Highlights

Excerpts from The 1908 Denver Demo Convention, Tom Noel) by PL Canady

Before continuing the Convention Highlights, let me introduce myself. My name is Pat Canady and I am retired from a career in Education and being a Small Business Owner.  My interest in politics led me to becoming a Democratic Party volunteer starting with the JFK Campaign.  Since retiring to Arizona, I have volunteered for a variety of candidates in many capacities. As an Elected Precinct Committee Person, I became a member of the AZ Democratic State Committee. I met Michel at the March 15th Congressional District 8 Caucus where I was campaigning for an Obama Delegate position .  Out of a group of 15 women, I was elected in the sixth round of voting.  Michael was interested in having someone blog to his site from the Democratic Convention in August 2008.  That is why I am posting these articles about Conventions, Candidates, and Delegates. I will continue to research points of interest and eventually share experiences from Denver with you.

Meanwhile back at the Denver Democratic Convention in 1908, the New York Times and East Coast newspapers sniped at Denver's handling of the Convention. The July 7th edition of the New York Times commented that it was a "populist convention", with whiskers, homespun suits and "riled" shirts and hayseed everywhere. It seems to me that they were paving the way for cable news stations and political pundits of today!

Colorado women received the vote in 1983. The other states giving the women the right to vote were Utah and Wyoming. The women from these states attended the convention and were sorely disappointed that the Democratic Platform did not endorse nationwide women's suffrage. These women were pioneer female delegates. This makes the West seem far more progressive then the East Coast critics of Western style politics!

Today, the states send an equal amount of women and men delegates to the conventions. Women's issues still remain on the forefront, however. For example: Violence Against Women at the Senior Round-table for Women's Justice; A Right to Choose as in Roe VS wade decided in 1973; Discrimination in the Work Place are just some issues unresolved in many states in the USA as well as other countries. These and other issues will be brought up at the convention in Denver 2008.  The pioneers would be both proud of the progress made in 100 years and astonished at the fact that there is so much unfinished business.

Democratic Convention Highlights (Excerpts from the 1908 Denver Demo Convention, Tom Noel)

Early in the last century, Denver, Colorado constructed the huge Municipal Auditorium to hold large conventions. After being rejected by the Republican's 1908 Convention, Denver enticed the Democrats with offers of free use of the auditorium, free decorations, drinks and $100,000 cash.  In comparison, this year Denver will have to come up with more like $100,000,000 to cover the Party's cost!

William Jennings Bryan was the inevitable candidate in 1908. Denver tried to provide drama in other ways. They hired a troop of Apache Indians to dance and mingle with the hoopla of delegates making it difficult, as Damon Runyon put it in the Rocky Mountain News, to distinguish Wild Indians from Democrats, except that the latter were "wearing a lot of badges" and yelling ALL of the time.

In comparison, this year's Democratic Convention, thus far, does not have a clear cut candidate in place. Democrats may have a different kind of entertainment as the possibility of a brokered convention is pending.  Before the era of presidential primaries, conventions were routinely brokered. Adlai Stevenson, in 1952, for the Democratic Party, and Thomas Dewey, in 1948, fro the Republican Party were the last two candidates selected through a brokered convention, although the Democratic Party's 1968 convention might have been brokered had it not been for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.  The last brokered convention to yield a nominee that went on to win the general election was the Democratic Convention in 1932. That candidate was Franklin Roosevelt.

Since then, there have been many years when brokered conventions were projected but did not come to pass.  In 1988, a brokered convention was predicted for the Democrats since several candidates on the Super Tuesday primaries that year.  Theorists have identified two types of political momentum, piecemeal and all-at-once, with different impacts on the front-runners.  In addition, the political parties wish to avoid the negative publicity from a brokered convention as well as to maximize the amount of time the nominee has to campaign for the presidency. There are approximately two months between the major parties conventions and Election Day in November.  In addition, the candidate nominated from the brokered convention will be seen as unconvincing and must jump additional hurdles in a relatively short time to gain the needed votes.  It is in the party's best interest to have the Clinton and Obama race resolved prior to the convention in August 2008.

To be continued by Pat Canady

More About Tim Bee's "Not a Campaign Ad" Campaign Ad

by David Safier

I want to add to Mike's post, Bee the Recidivist? (Damn you, Mike, for using words in your headline I have to look up! ["Recidivist" means repeat offender, for the vocab-challenged among us. It's one of them high fallutin' legal terms.])

The ad praising Tim for his work on a bill that would make the Career Ladders Program available to all Arizona school districts has been running regularly on cable TV news. As Tedski pointed out on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion a few days ago, the ad did not have a statement at the end saying who was behind it. I assumed it came from Bee's campaign.

Nope. According to an article in the Star, it was paid for using money provided by school districts through a lobbying group, The Education Finance Reform Group. The Phoenix lobbying firm, Public Policy Partners, put together the ad. The lobbyists, as well as people from the school districts paying for the ad, say it's nothing more than a Thank You to Bee for supporting education.

Let me repeat. The money behind this ad came from state tax dollars given to school districts and paid to a lobbying firm. Tim Bee's hands are clean, he says. Didn't know a thing about it.

Let's look at the ad and see if it's accurate and nothing more than a simple Thank You from grateful schools.

The ad says, because of a bill sponsored by Bee, "all teachers in Southern Arizona will receive greater pay for performance." Two things here: First, all teachers will not receive greater pay. The bill would allow every district to participate in the Career Ladders Program, which means that teachers who wish to take coursework and participate in education-based activities will get extra pay. The ad makes it sound like it's a salary boost for teachers, which is very popular with voters these days. Second, the ad says, "all teachers in southern Arizona." In fact, it's all teachers in the entire state, not just Southern Arizona. If this group wants to thank Bee for improving education in the state, and not boost his chances to beat Gabby Giffords in the CD-8 Congressional race, the ad would not specify "Southern Arizona."

At the end of the ad, the "southern Arizona" point is hammered home. In a graphic with Tim Bee's face in the foreground and an Arizona flag in the background, the words, "Fighting for fairness in southern Arizona" are written across the bottom, as the narrator reads them aloud. Again, the legislation includes the entire state, but the ad implies Bee is giving Southern Arizona something special.

This is no simple thank you. It's a big, wet, sloppy kiss planted on Tim Bee's forehead with the clear intent of furthering his campaign.

Hey, Senator McCain, "Who is Fred Malek?"

By Dean Barker

Meet McCain's National Finance Co-Chair Fred Malek.

So, who is Fred Malek, anyhow?

On a Friday in August 1959, five men in their twenties were arrested about 2 a.m. and held in the county jail all day after sheriff's deputies found a blood-spattered, unoccupied car about 1:15 a.m. at the entrance to Vicary's   Park on Kickapoo Creek Road near Peoria, Ill.

...After checking the blood-spattered pants of one of the men at the state crime laboratory in Springfield, it was determined that the stains were animal and not human blood. Backes said the men then changed their story and said they had "caught a dog and were barbecuing it."

Police then found the skinned animal on a spit in the park. The insides of  the dog had been removed, and a bottle of liquor was found on a nearby park  table. Backes said the men told him they had been drinking earlier in the  evening at a West Bluff tavern.

One of the men arrested in the incident, in which a dog was killed,   skinned, gutted and barbecued on a spit, was Frederick V. Malek, 22, of   Berwyn, Ill.

It's unclear to me whether or not Malek's earlier fondness for drunken barbarism influenced at all the carrying out of his prominent role within the Nixon Administration. 

You make the call:

Malek's responsiveness program was extensively investigated by the Senate  Watergate committee. The panel found that the program was aimed at influencing  decisions concerning government "grants, contracts, loans, subsidies,  procurement and construction projects," decisions regarding "legal and  regulatory actions," and even personnel decisions that affected protected  "career positions" -- all to advance Nixon's reelection.

Wow. I'm thinking Mr. Malek might really feel at home in Bush's concept of the current Department of Justice.

Read more about Malek...

McCain Uses "Throw Money at Education" Line

by David Safier

(TASL) I hold this truth to be self-evident. Anyone who uses the phrase, "government can't just throw money at public education" is not in favor of increasing educational spending.

Arizona's own John McCain is the only presidential candidate left standing who uses the phrase. In a recent speech, he said,

"Government can't just throw money at public education while reinforcing the failures of many of our schools, but should, through choice and competition, by rewarding good teachers and holding bad teachers accountable, help parents prepare their children for the challenges and opportunities of the global economy."

Let me translate. "Don't put more money into education. Give tax dollars to private schools, and keep salaries low with a merit pay system that gives pay raises to some teachers and denies them to others."

Four more years! Four more years!

Independents: #1 Issue in Arizona is Education

by David Safier

I didn't read an article saying that Independents' number one issue is education. My conclusion is based on a very informal, very unrepresentative sample. But I think it's reasonably valid.

Today I rang doorbells for Don Jorgensen who is running for the State House in LD-26. We only spoke to Independents, and one of our questions was, "What is the most important issue facing Arizona." Unprompted, the vast majority replied, "Education."

This was in a well-heeled neighborhood in Northeast Tucson, in the general vicinity of Sunrise and Campbell. As I said, it was not representative of Arizona at large. But this was definitely not a bunch of liberal Democrats. Most of them said they voted for Democrats and Republicans, depending on the candidate.

I desperately wanted to ask the people I talked to, "How are we going to pay to improve education in Arizona?" but I restrained myself. I suspect that if I did, however, they would not have said, "I'm willing to pay higher taxes."

The good news, from my standpoint, is that people get it -- our education is not what it should be. (I got similar results a few years ago when I was calling people in a more randomized survey.) The not-so-good news, however, is that I think most people want the tooth fairy to leave some money under the legislature's pillow to pay for it.

But at least people recognize there is a problem. That's a start.

Emily Bittner Rules The Octagon

I just love to watch a good sparring match. I prefer mixed martial arts, but Emily Bittner (AZ Dems' Communications Director) taking apart House Republican Spokeman Barrett Marson is nearly as fun—and almost as bloody. Of course, your view of who wins the this ep of Horizon's One On One depends entirely on your sympathies heading in—there's not enough time to really have a substantive debate in this format, and Emily clearly knows that. So, she goes for the take-down and the tap-out like any good cage fighter. Enjoy!

Sheila Tobias on Donna Branch-Gilby for Pima County Supervisor

Sheila Tobias, a well-known educator and activist here in southern Arizona recently has been circulating her endorsement of Donna Branch-Gilby over incumbent Sharon Bronson in the Democratic primary for District 3 Pima County Supervisor. I thought it really well done, and worth a read for anyone trying to understand why Donna is challenging an incumbent Democrat:

Dear Friends:

A Board of Supervisors election rarely generates the passion and excitement of a presidential primary; or a congressional race; or even the contest for Mayor and City Council.

But, once you think about the power exerted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors over everything that matters, from plugging potholes to budgeting and managing the libraries, from juvenile detention to solid waste land fills, from ensuring the integrity of elections to waste water treatment, county property assessments and taxing, and approving (or rejecting) rezoning requests for homes and business development, you will realize, as I have come to realize: that the upcoming election to the Board of Supervisors matters very much to all of us who live here in the County.

The five supervisors sometimes appear to be a permanent body. With two of the Supervisors in their (well-paid by the way) positions for 12 and 10 years, a third for 8 and a fourth ensconced for six, I am supporting a challenger, Donna Branch Gilby, former Pima County Chair of the Democratic Party, most recently Vice-Chair of the State Party, because Donna is committed to voter integrity (see below) and balanced growth. She’s already been endorsed by the Election Integrity Committee of the Pima County Democratic Party.

Donna has explained to me the arcane workings of the Board of Supervisors – which we voters cannot alter; all we can do is to change the “cast of characters.”

Donna is running against a Democrat in a district that includes north Tucson and extends from the West side of Tucson to the Yuma County line and south to the Mexico border and includes the Tohono O’odham Nation. If you’re wondering why a Democrat would oppose another Democrat (and two of the other Democratic Supervisors are likely to be challenged by members of their own party this year as well), the reason resides in yet another responsibility that the Supervisors have, namely, determining voting modalities, and certifying elections. 

State law charges political parties with performing oversight of the election process; this includes monitoring the vote counting process.  When Donna chaired the Pima County Democratic Party, she spoke numerous times on this before the Board of Supervisors.  Her opponent in this election was the leading obstructionist.  Even after a 3½ day trial in December 2007, when Judge Michael Miller ruled that political party officials could examine the databases of the 2006 elections, Supervisor Bronson was calling for an appeal of the judge’s ruling.

With friends like these (on voter integrity), you don’t need enemies.

About Donna:

• Donna is a 40-year resident of Tucson with a Master’s in Public Administration from the U of A.  She taught supervisory and management skills to Dept of Economic Security staff for 20 years.  Was a member of AFSCME.

• Served as Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party in 2006 and then as 1^st Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2007

• Founder of the Arizona Women’s Political Caucus; served as a Director on the Boards of Tucson Peace Center, Planned Parenthood, Open Inn and as a Commissioner on the Tucson Human Relations Commission for 8 years. 

• She lives with her husband Bob Gilby at Milagro Cohousing - a Community in Balance with Nature, which they co-founded in 2001. She is the mother of Michelle Williams, MD, Tucson, and Toby Branch, AIA, Denver.

Donna’s priorities – including voter integrity – are ours:

• Balanced growth – to ensure that the population of Pima County doesn’t exceed our water supplies – employing the Board’s power over

  •      zoning,

  •      building  codes,

  • impact fees,

  • determining where sewer lines will go

  
  Thus, the Board could communicate to developers that in-fill rather than sprawl is a Pima County priority; and make that ruling stick!

• Transportation –through the budgeting process,

• Election process – through funding and supervision over the County Elections Division

• Open Decisions – Openly Arrived At

• Taking more leadership so that the professional County Administrator (who has also been on the job a long time, directing policy from behind the scenes) implements Board policy rather than his own.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors is required by law to hold open “Study Sessions” at which upcoming decisions (not laws – they do not legislate) are supposed to be publicly aired. But  for the past several years, these “Study Sessions” have been routinely canceled. Donna wants to bring in the kind of experienced people who invite input, criticism, and other (better) ideas when appropriate to a discussion or a decision.

Donna is likely to be opposed in her bid to unseat Supervisor Bronson (in office since 1996) by the Arizona Home Builders, Realtors, and others who have come to benefit from her long incumbency.

Once you meet Donna Branch-Gilby, you will know that she would make the Board of Supervisors more responsive to the views and the needs of people like us.

What you can do?:

• Offer your support publicly, by adding your name to a list of supporters.

• Volunteer, especially to do research on the impact of the Board’s actions/inaction on the utility service delivery boundary.

• Make a financial contribution. County elections are not part of “Clean Elections,” so candidates must raise funds traditionally – by asking. The maximum allowed contribution is $390 per person each election cycle.  Checks to “Branch-Gilby 2008” may be sent to P.O. Box 85781, Tucson, AZ 85754 

• Join me at a Meet the Candidate party at the home of

Bob and Joan Kaye Cauthorn
Wednesday, April 2,  5:30 – 7:30 pm
30 N Camino Espanol
One block North and East of Broadway and Country Club.

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

Graf Resignation Not Prelude to New Campaign... not for office, anyhow

by Michael Bryan

After Arizona 8th reported that Randy Graf resigned from the Pima GOP Executive Committee, there was some speculation that perhaps Graf was getting ready to mount a campaign.

There had been rumors in the past that Graf was considering a run for Pima County Supervisor in District 4, challenging incumbent Ray Carroll. I never gave it much credence as the post hardly seems political enough for Graf. Given that the most obvious motivation for a run was Graf's present support of Election Integrity activists seeking the release of public elections records, running against Carroll (the Board's most staunch critic on the issue) wouldn't make much sense. But who can fathom the mind of the movement conservative? So maybe?

But no.

I spoke to Graf, and he denied that he would stand for any office in 2008. He resigned purely to focus on personal and professional matters. He did leave the door open to 2010 and beyond however. I'm glad. I don't know what Democrats would do without Graf to kick around.

But what is Graf's new gig that forces him to resign from party leadership? Hmmm... lobbyists can't be party officers, can they?

Graf attended a recent public meeting in Green Valley about Augusta's controversial   proposed Rosemont mine in the Santa Ritas, and spoke in favor of the mine:

One member of the audience, Green Valley's Randy Graf, noted that mining was a major reason much of the American Southwest was settled and developed.

He said mining production is much more modern and less destructive than in the 19th century, and said it was good people “were here learning about the process.”

He said, “I don't think people should dismiss it without” a better understanding.

Maybe Randy's getting a job with Augusta? I can certainly see Augusta buying up some local political muscle in their fight to open the Rosemont mine. And Randy can't do that job while a member of the Executive Committee...

Augusta wasn't above shipping outside ringers in for the Forrest Service's public meeting in Green Valley who were promised a free meal and thought they were going to learn more about new high-paying jobs.

[Ray Carroll] was critical of how Augusta on the previous night attracted proponents to the hearing by offering them a free meal and a bus ride to the site.

Wednesday, Jamie Sturgess, an Augusta vice president, issued an explanation of the incident, saying apparently some of those who turned out thought it was “an opportunity to learn about jobs.”

Sturgess wrote in a memo, “Rosemont provided a setting for project supporters to gather at a local restaurant and provided transportation to those who requested it to the Forest Service scoping meeting,” in Tucson.

His memo acknowledged that some may have come hoping to learn about high-paying jobs, and he said, the company “is very encouraged by the high level of interest in the 500 new jobs Rosemont Copper will be hiring.”

Read the Sturgess Memo (PDF)

If Rosemont is willing to blatantly stack a community meeting with ringers, why not hire a local political gun like Graf to help with the PR in a certain segment of the electorate and to help ease the process (i.e. lobby) with government officials, many of whom Graf knows?

If this isn't the plan, I strongly encourage Augusta and Graf to get together for a chat: it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Voter ID Laws: Voter Supression Under the Guise of Preventing Individual Voter Fraud

"The GOP has transformed the legal apparatus of the United States into an instrument of partisan force." - Scott Horton "Vote Machine: How Republicans hacked the Justice Department" (PDF)

The GOP has been engaging in a cynical and deliberate attempt to use the justice system to punish their political enemies, justify and legitimate their systematic voter suppression programs, and seek electoral advantage by undermining the neutrality and credibility of our criminal justice system. Any citizen of conscience, liberal and conservative alike, should condemn these practices before their entrenchment in our legal culture enables Democrats to abuse power in a similar fashion as they move into positions of power.

Once an instrument of power becomes legitimate through repeated use, it is naive in the extreme to expect those who seek power to lay such tools aside voluntarily. The GOP's misuse of our justice system in this fashion therefore threatens the freedom of every citizen and undermines the integrity of our democratic system of governance.

The GOP's campaign seeks to build a myth of individual voter fraud in which large numbers of ineligible persons (usually non-citizens) seek to subvert our elections by voting fraudulently or multiple times. Concern about such fraud is exploited to pass draconian voter ID laws, the purpose of which is to differentially reduce Democratic voter's effective participation (i.e. a voter's ballot actually counting) by 3-5%, thereby allowing victory for the GOP in more close contests.

The second, even more pernicious aspect of their campaign is to subvert the Justice Department (and even some local prosecutorial authorities, such as The Maricopa County Attorney's office) to bolster the claims of individual voter fraud by issuing voter fraud cases on flimsy and deficient evidence. This has happened repeatedly and is behind at least some of the U.S. Attorney firings that drew a great deal of attention last year.

In addition, the Justice Department has been used, as have the investigative resources of the FBI, to bring prosecutions for public corruption against political enemies and rivals of the GOP. From 2001 to 2006, the Justice Department had initiated 375 investigations of public officials: 298 of those investigations targeted Democrats, only 67 of them targeted Republicans.

The odds of such an imbalance being the result of random chance is 1 in 10,000. Based on the great number of public corruption scandals that have engulfed the GOP and dragged its reputation into the gutter with voters, neither is it based on the underlying proclivities of Democratic officials (who, being in the minority for those years, had much less opportunity to misuse their offices, in any case).

Recent Senate hearings have shown there is no evidence to support GOP concerns about individual voter fraud, which is the only kind of election fraud that could be addressed by voter ID laws. Watch the hearing (RealMedia).

Arizona's voter ID law, requiring proof of citizenship to register and to vote at the polls, is back in effect for the 2008 races. The effect of this law will not be to stop voter fraud, but to stop a class of people, including the poor and minorities, from effectively exercising their franchise, giving a preferential advantage to Republican candidates.

An Indiana voter ID law is now before the Supreme Court, and in the oral arguments the Justices admitted frustration that they haven't been provided any reliable data on which to judge the seriousness of the 'problem' of individual voter fraud. Download Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)

A State must have a compelling interest in preventing such fraud in order to burden a fundamental constitutional right such as voting. As the method of remedying the problem imposes a known cost of effectively disenfranchising a statistically measurable number of the most vulnerable Americans, there must really be a significant problem and the court must examine the State's method of addressing that problem to ensure that it is narrowly tailored to avoid burdening that right to the extent possible.

The Court has no such record establishing there is a serious problem with individual voter fraud, therefore the State's response cannot possibly be narrowly tailored to impose the least possible burden on the fundamental right to vote. If the Court upholds the Indiana law, the ruling will be utterly illegitimate and primarily based on the partisan bias of the Court.

Voter ID is merely a legal means of harassing certain classes of voters. Voter turn-out is not the issue, as turn-out is apparently not much affected by voter ID laws. Rather, it is the effective exercise of the voter's franchise that is the issue. A person without adequate ID may go to poll, and even cast a provisional ballot, but the likelihood of his vote actually being counted becomes much, much less.

Preventing people from coming to the polls and voting is much harder than simply creating a legal basis on which to ignore their votes. Provisional voting provides just such a legal mechanism that targets undesirable voters (i.e. preponderantly Democratic ones) by means of the ID requirement.

Many Republicans express derision for the idea that significant numbers of citizens lack a government issued ID acceptable under voter ID laws: an estimated 11% of the population (21 million Americans) lack such ID. Many of those citizens lack the resources (time, money, transportation, documentation) to obtain such ID in order to make their franchise effective. In the absence of any evidence that individual voter fraud is a significant problem, the burdens placed on these citizens to make their franchise effective is intolerable.

Every American should be outraged when any political party resorts to legalistic methods of voter suppression in order to win more elections. There is a clear echo of the legal methods of effectively destroying the franchise of black Americans for over a century in these laws, prompting many to call the new laws "José Crow."

Just as "Jim Crow" will forever stain the honor of my own Democratic Party, "José Crow" will become a source of eternal dishonor for the GOP. The temporary gains made as a result of such a shameful policy cannot even begin to compensate for the permanent reputational harm it imposes.

Election Integrity Issues Spark a Republican Civil War in Pima County

For someone who claims "I don't speak for the Republican Party" Benny White sure has a lot to say about election integrity. Benny is the political wife of Republican Party chairwoman Judy White (herself given to unilateral pronouncements as to what is legitimate or illegitimate subjects for political discourse). Benny was appointed to the Pima County Logic and Accuracy Committee, which oversees the pre-election testing of voting equipment, and he has an opinion as to how elections should be administered in Pima County, and how they should not be.

There have been some recent murmurings about the Board of Supervisors yanking the Elections Division away from direct supervision by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and placing it under the direct supervision of the Board of Supervisors, or even giving it to the Recorder's office. After the raft of embarrassing and troubling revelations about the Elections Divisions' operation in the recent trial and on-going legal tussle, I can certainly understand if some Supervisors have lost confidence in CHuckelberry's supervision of the division.

In response to some of those murmurings, Benny felt the need to speak his mind via email to all and sundry on the subject, and to critique any such plan as potentially making the situation far worse by making elections a direct report to a partisan body (especially one not controlled by his own party, presumably...).

I think Benny's got some excellent points. Maybe, as he suggests, the County Registrar is the natural home of the Election Division, since their functions are so closely coordinated, and that is the way Maricopa County has structured their elections system bureaucracy (though, of course, the argument "that's what Maricopa does" carries much less weight with me than it apparently does with Benny).

Unfortunately, Benny stomped on one particular toe by making a disparaging allegation as to one of our County Supervisor's responsiveness to him on this issue.

Benny opined:

"I was opposed to the release of the database and requested that the Board of Supervisors appeal the legally flawed order from Judge Miller. The Board of Supervisors chose to ignore me. As a matter of fact, Ray Carroll would not even return phone calls to discuss the issue. Well, I am still waiting for the benefits the Democrats promised Judge Miller they would provide." [emphasis added]

Well, that didn't sit too well with Sugar Ray, as it simply wasn't true, according to him. He also didn't much appreciate Benny, who is not a licensed attorney in Arizona, let alone an expert on Arizona elections law (other than perhaps in his own mind), criticizing a well-respected judge like Michael Miller, even if Benny claims he doesn't speak for the Republican Party.

Ray invited Benny to keep the Carroll name out of his damn mouth, thank you very much. He made it very clear that he didn't appreciate being talked about in such a manner, nor that Benny should presume to have any authority to speak for the Republican Party on this matter, despite his rather disingenuous disclaimer to the contrary.

I don't know if the source of Ray's annoyance is just Benny's casual smear on Ray's reputation, or if Ray also doesn't appreciate any challenge for leadership on election integrity within the Pima Republican Party that some might imagine Chairperson White's wife speaking up on the issue implies. In either case, Ray made it very clear that he's more than willing to take the case to the grassroots and let the PCs decide who should be leading the Pima County party, if the Whites don't step off.

Them's fightin' words, as they say. Ray is clearly sending a shot across Benny's, and by extension his husband Judy's bow. If Judy and Benny don't trim their sails, Ray seems quite ready to un-mast them, or put one below the waterline.

Asked if he had anything nice to say about the Whites, Ray deadpanned, "They're not the Clintons."

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...