Arizona Week in Review

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

Furthering the story line is Bee's ads. Two of them so far and neither contains the words "GOP" or "Republican," instead using the line "Independence for a Change." Timmy, that seems rather derivative of and responsive to Giffords' tag "Because Change Can't Wait." Wow, with even conservatives wanting to run as change agents, and eshewing their party's label, it can't be more clear how utterly the GOP has fucked up.

Bee Stings Busy-Bodies:

Bee nixed the idea of an independent bi-partisan look into rule violations by Sen. Jack Harper to stop debate in the Arizona Senate so that the Gay Marriage Referendum could be considered. Standing in the breach to protect members of his caucus from accountability for dir1ty tricks isn't exactly the sort of co-operative, bi-partisan consensus building image that Bee is trying to sell to voters. Looks a lot more like "my party right or wrong" to me.

Endorse This:

It really grates on me to see elected officials taking sides in party primaries. The most irritating are Congressional primaries where Representatives from other districts endorse in a contested primary. Ann Kirkpatrick announced an endorsement from Harry Mitchell, adding to those she's already gotten from Governor Napolitano and Gabby Giffords.

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Poor Joe:

Pity poor Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpiao. Beaten in pinata-effigy by protesters at a book signing, his head came off and with carried about a bit by Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia (full disclosure: Isabel used to be my boss). The rightwing rant radio and usual bug-eating-crazy suspects, got a hold of that and had a field day: calling for Isabel's firing by the Pima County Board, bar discipline, actual beheading... whatev.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

Comments

[sheapenny]

Now you listen here Mike!

I may be Dwight's Mother and banned from making comments on your blog by you, but you keep repeating "Freedom Of Speech" while making threats to Dwight if anyone from the Leister Family has an opinion on this so called blog!?

As for the book signing of an elected Maricopa County Sheriff who explains he is enforcing the law(which you Mike took an oath to protect except when it comes to Illegal Aliens;we legal citizens must follow your law)I was at the signing and took offense to a Pima County Public Defender using her credentials and Office to support 15 and 16 year old kids taking a likeness of a law enforcement office and beating it to a pulp saying he is a racist for enforcing the laws as written,then this Isabelle Garcia takes the severed head of that law enforcement officer and carries it around making threats to myself as she passed by me standing in line with other families with children saying , "I am a racist!"

Who the hell do you think you are Mike?!

[mhp]

Welcome back Mike, great post as usual; thoughtful, intelligent, well spoken, informed. I hope that anyone who choses to comment will follow that example.
I agree with your comments on the sales tax initiative. Sales tax increases are punitive, disproportionetly hitting the middle and lower classes. Of course the need is there but there must be a better way, and again you're right-it's not my job to propose one. Last time I looked I was not an elected official.

[Walt S]

What would your blog comment be if Sheriff Joe walked around the media with a likeness of Isabell Garcia's head held high in the air after beating her in effigy. Would you demand his recall or would you write he has a right to his PRIVATE opinion so this kind of behavior is responsible.

[mbryanaz]

Dwight, stop hiding behind your mother's skirts, and stop posting on my site. Me telling you to clear out is not a "threat"; you want to watch those accusations, buddy. And for your information, the only person entitled to an opinion on this blog is me: everyone else is my guest. You are no longer welcome. Unwelcome guests are, well, NOT WELCOME.

My comment, Walt S, would be that Joe has the right to do it, but he would definitely have a PR problem. Even an idiot can surely see the difference between a Sheriff making such a display and a defense attorney. Someone who's routine responsibility is oversight of people who are entrusted with the discretion and authority to arrest people, investigate people, and even beat and kill people in certain situations are judged by a slightly more sober standard for personal comportment and political expression.

[Arizona Web Design]

LOL great article. Thanks for this web site guys, keep up the good work.

[David Safier]

I want to put a slightly different interpretation on the Isabel Garcia story. This is a classic Republican tactic. Take one tiny part of a story and make that the only story anyone talks about. Kerry said he was for it before he was against it exactly once, in a moment of fatigue (I think, standing in front of the Grand Canyon), and it became the story for the whole campaign, along with about 90 seconds of action on Kerry's swiftboat. Dolores Huerta made a single comment about Republicans hating Latinos, and it became a conservative cause celebre for months. And most recently, after Obama's nearly flawless trip to the Middle East and Europe, McCain and his right wing cronies are trying to make the whole trip about a stop at a hospital Obama didn't make.

My disagreement with you, Mike, is your comment that we should be careful not to give them ammunition. That plays right into their hands. They want us to watch what we say and do while they swing fast and loose so they can monopolize the media attention with their lies and slurs. No, we shouldn't watch what we say. We should, for instance, question McCain's mental balance, his temper, his fitness for Commander in Chief, his grasp of issues -- all of that, and loudly. Then we have to be ready to use the Republican blowback to amplify our message. Enough hiding our heads in the sand, hoping it will all go away!

OK, I got a little carried away and went beyond my quibble with you. I just want to see Dems walk proud, talk proud and call it like it is.

[Giddens]

I can think of no better way to benefit the status and reputation of Arizona than to destroy the career of our state's resident brownshirt-in-chief, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He's gone well beyond any reasonable standard of "law enforcement" to the point of beating and causing other forms of harm to totally innocent people, openly racist actions, and other antics that showcase his own narcissism. He needs to be taken down.

He needs to be met with a raft of civil lawsuits, coupled with criminal cases as a consequence of the many instances he's gone over the edge. Career death from a thousands small cuts, and a few big ones. Oh, and we need to register minority voters as much as possible in the state. Arizona now is where California was back in 1994, though California was even worse, with Pete Wilson running the show-- at least Arizona has a Democratic governor and office to fight the racists. Arizona has to be ground zero in the war to bring down the conservatives. We have the numbers, it's time to mobilize them.

[Ahwatukee Dentist]

I don't know if AZ will be blue this November, but I guess we'll have to see. The one thing I do know, as long as Utah is intact it will be a red state.

[PHPmoz]

All politics aside, I love that donkey pic!