Blog For Arizona

Democrat Randall Friese Kicks-off Campaign for LD9 Representative (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Grassroots volunteers mingled with local and statewide Democratic Party glitterati at the official campaign kick-off event for Dr. Randall Friese, who is running for a seat in Arizona House of Representatives.

Friese recently announced his candidacy for one of LD9's two seats in the Arizona House. Currently, LD9, which stretches from Speedway in midtown north into the Foothills, is a competitive district being served by Republican Ethan Orr and Democrat Victoria Steele in the House and Democrat Steve Farley in the Arizona Senate.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her astronaut husband Mark Kelly hosted an estimated 130 stalwarts of the Pima County Democratic Party, including current County Chair Don Jorgenson, past Chair Jeff Rogers, and several current and former elected Democrats: LD9 Rep. Victoria Steele, LD10 Reps. Stephanie Mach and Bruce Wheeler, LD10 Senator Dave Bradley, Tucson City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona, former Attorney General and current Secretary of State candidate Terry Goddard, and former Rep. Nancy Young-Wright. (Farley was conspicuously absent, following a social media dust-up on Friday over this article in the Arizona Daily Star.)

Former Giffords' staffer Pam Simon and Kelly gave impassioned speeches about Friese, who was one of the University Medical Center trauma surgeons who cared for Giffords and others who were shot on January 8, 2011. During Giffords' long stay in UMC's intensive care unit (ICU), Kelly and Friese became friends and had many late-night ICU discussions on multiple topics-- including politics. According to Kelly, Friese and Giffords are similar in that they are dedicated to finding solutions, not playing politics. [Friese vs Orr on the issues, after the jump.]

A second self-indulgent trip down memory lane

by David Safier

As I count down to my exit from BfA and entrance onto The Range, I'm taking a look back on my tenure here. Mike Bryan says I've written over 3,000 posts, and I believe it. Even scrolling through them at lightning speed takes some time. Here's a continuation of my first self-indulgent trip down memory lane, stopping just before the horrific January 8, 2011, shooting.

• I started blogging about charter schools in earnest in 2009, looking at the Imagine School chain, which has gone from bad to even further downhill, BASIS, which does a good job at what it does but lies through its teeth about how it does it, and other charters.

• I went after candidate Steve Kozachik in a post in 2009 when he ran for city council for the first time. Boy, was I wrong. Sorry about that, Steve.

• I began my series about the "Creative Headline Writing Team" at the Star in 2010 when it was coming up with jaw-droppingly misleading and/or politically slanted headlines. I capped the series with a "Worst Star Headline of the Year" contest in December. Probably coincidentally, the paper's headlines have gotten better since then.

• The Goldwater Institute's education guy, Matthew Ladner, was pushing the "Florida education miracle" pretty heavy. I wrote a series of posts, "The Floridation of Arizona Education" in 2010, taking apart the not-so-miraculous educational progress in the Sunshine State. Since then, Arizona has adopted a number of Florida education ideas, while Florida has backpedaled on some of them. Ladner now works for Florida ex-Guv Jeb Bush.

Gabrielle Giffords receives JFK Presidential Library Profiles in Courage Award

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times reports, Kennedy Library Gives Courage Award to Giffords:

Caroline Kennedy was not even 6 years old when her father was assassinated 50 years ago. And on Sunday, she said the hurt never heals.

“Our family is still suffering the heartbreak caused by gun violence,” Ms. Kennedy said here at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

She was here to honor another target of an assassin, one who lived. Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in 2011 at point-blank range and was nearly killed by a lone gunman, has devoted herself to pressing for measures to prevent gun violence since she has recovered.

For that, Ms. Kennedy bestowed on Ms. Giffords the Profile in Courage Award in a small ceremony on Sunday afternoon at the library. The award is given annually to someone who demonstrates the kind of courage that President Kennedy highlighted in his book “Profiles in Courage,” which praised eight senators who risked their careers by taking principled stands on unpopular positions.

“No one should have to lose a husband, a wife, a father, a child to senseless murder,” Ms. Kennedy said in presenting the award to Ms. Giffords. “But as our honoree has shown, out of that pain and tragedy, we must find the strength to carry on, to give meaning to our lives, and to build a more just and peaceful world.”

Tucsonans Fight to Keep City Safe for Guns-- Not People (videos)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

If only Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik had kept his big mouth shut about this whole gun control thing...but, no, he dared to discuss gun control at a public forum, he sponsored a local gun-buyback-and-destroy program on the anniversary of the Tucson Massacre, and he pushed for (and passed) an ordinance requiring gun show background checks.

Now to combat Koz's jack-booted attempts at sensible gun control laws to take away their freedoms, Tucson gun nuts patriots Charles Heller and Sean McClusky are working hard at make Arizona a safer place for guns-- lots of guns.

Heller opposed Koz's gun buyback because innocent guns were destroyed. Instead he supported fromer State Senator Frank Antenori's parking lot gun sales which allowed private citizens to freely sell their guns to strangers, which held on the same day at basically the same location. More recently, Heller appeared on the Daily Show touting the merits of a new law in the Arizona Legislature which would bar law enforcement from destroying guns.

McClusky-- working with The Armed Citizen Project-- also wants to break down barriers to gun ownership-- by giving them to Tucsonans who live in high-crime areas-- specifically the Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood, the Midvale Park Neighborhood, and midtown Tucson neighborhoods. (What could go wrong?) Videos and details after the jump.

Evil twins ALEC & the NRA: Working to keep America safe for capitalism

by Pamela Powers Hannley

While many Americans are clamoring for gun control legislation on multiple levels, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are working hard to maintain the status quo-- which ensures the safety of gun manufactures and sellers-- to the detriment of the American public. Tea Party minions-- like former Legislator Frank Antenori [So, doesn't Raytheon find this employee's antics a bit embarrassing?] and the nuts behind this event-- are marching in lockstep behind their corporate masters. 

For another look at the evil twins-- ALEC and the NRA-- check out this story from ColorOfChange.org...

Pressed hard for a response to the tragic shooting deaths of 20 young children and 7 adults in Newtown, the National Rifle Association (NRA) finally broke its silence to announce that the solution to gun violence is more guns. It just doesn't make any sense — unless you're in the gun business.

As a long-time funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — and co-chair of its Public Safety and Elections Task Force — the NRA has directly authored dozens of "model" gun access laws that fly in the face of commonsense efforts to reduce gun violence.¹

And now, despite the wave of bad publicity ALEC's received for pushing Florida's NRA-drafted "Shoot First" law out to 25 other states, it's clear the NRA isn't prepared to clean up its act. 

More commentary and lots of links after the jump.

Martha McSally: The anti-feminist (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Republican Congressional candidate Col. Martha McSally says she has been “fighting for women’s rights and women’s equality [her] whole life.”

McSally is well known as the first woman combat pilot and the Air Force officer who fought against a government rule requiring US service women to wear Arab garb when they leave the base.

Does this make her a champion for women’s rights? Let’s look beyond these headlines to answer that question.

More on McSally's stances on choice, women's health, equal pay, and the War on Women after the jump...

Choice

Although McSally bristles when called a “cookie cutter” Republican candidate, her stances on women’s issues are in lock-step with Congressional War on Women stalwarts like Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan and fellow Arizonan Jeff Flake, who is running on the Republican ticket for US Senate against Dr. Richard Carmona.

McSally’s website says she believes in “the sanctity of every human life”. This right-wing code for saying that she agrees with the Republican Party’s anti-abortion platform. Ironically, small-government McSally believes that the government should dictate when American women have children. Not supporting a woman’s right to make decisions governing her own body is a deal breaker for many women.

In a 2010 CBS News interview about Sarah Palin, Katie Couric asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem if one could be a “conservative feminist”—as Palin claimed to be, despite her disagreement with traditional feminist views.

“Yes, you can be a feminist who says that you don’t agree with abortion and wouldn’t have an abortion,” Steinem answered, “but you can’t be a feminist who says that other women can’t [have an abortion] and [who] criminalizes abortion. One in three American women needs an abortion at some time in her life. To make that criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.”

Women’s Health

In addition to her anti-choice stance, McSally is in the repeal-and-replace camp when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--even declaring that she would vote to strike down the ACA as one of her first acts in Congress. This also reflects her anti-woman views.

The ACA includes many hard-fought benefits for women: coverage for preventive services like mammograms and PAP smears; coverage for maternity care—a benefit that McSally’s former boss Arizona Senator Jon Kyl infamously mocked;  coverage for contraception and family planning—a benefit 98% of American women need at some point in their lives; and an end to insurance premium price discrimination against women.  

Pay Equity

The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law as president was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers for wage discrimination. Historically, American women have made less than male counterparts doing the same work. A 2010 study showed that American women earn about 80 cents per every dollar earned by a male worker. This not only translates to a smaller paycheck, but over a lifetime in the workforce, this results in a significantly smaller retirement income. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has declared that he would not have signed the fair pay act into law.

Where does McSally stand on equal pay for equal work? Who knows? The “Jobs & Economic Opportunities” paragraph on her website focuses on cutting corporate taxes and regulations—with no mention of equal pay or workers’ rights.

‘Walk in My Shoes’

In a clip from a debate between McSally and Democratic candidate Ron Barber, McSally explains “the real war on women.”

“…You want to talk about a war on women? Walk in my shoes down the streets of Kabul. Walk in my shoes down the streets of Riyadh; where women have to be covered up. Where they’re stoned, where they’re honor killed if they’ve been raped , where they can’t drive and they can’t travel without the permission of a male relative.

That’s a war on women…” 

To American women, McSally’s comment is a slap in the face because it discounts dismisses our struggles here at home. Yes, definitely, the way women are treated in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist countries is deplorable. Women in more progressive countries are fighting for the rights of our oppressed sisters around the world.

We are able to fight because of the rights and freedoms we have won here at home—the right to free public education, the right to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to control our own bodies, the right to affordable healthcare for ourselves and our families, the right to love and marry whomever we want.

McSally’s record and public statements show that she is not a feminist and that she does not stand with American women in our struggles.

P.S. I included a still life of my recipe box, my 1972 edition Betty Crocker Cookbook, a few kitchen knick-knacks, and my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe to show that you can be a feminist and still cook and own recipe cards. 

 

Martha McSally: Warrior woman hides from questions, constituents, inconsistencies

 by Pamela Powers Hannley

If there were a race between Senator Jon Kyl and former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who would you vote for?

The CD2 race is just that. Former Kyl employee Martha McSally is running against former Giffords employee Ron Barber.

Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn't afraid to meet constituents?

As a long-time resident of Giffords' district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat-- you know, the one who says she "resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”-- but she was a no show.

McSally is no Gabby Giffords

Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn't have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)

I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women's issues (since she now claims to fight for women's rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the "sanctity of life", while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what's up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).

When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. "Gosh, she's so busy." (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes-- we're not talking with her!)

Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women's issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, "Gosh... she's so busy. She doesn't have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know... blah, blah, blah." Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks?   (Was it something I tweeted?)

More unanswered questions about Martha McSally after the jump.

White privilege? Video is worth a thousand words (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Dave Safier posted a short story this morning-- Presented Without Comment-- about the Three Sonorans' putdown of Safier's endorsement of Kristel Foster for the Tucson Unified School Board (TUSD).  (Whatever, I said I didn't agree with Dave either. People are allowed to have their own opinions.)

What Safier failed to mention was that the Three Sonorans also used the occasion to crack on Blog for Arizona and progressives, in general, and me, in particular. So, what else is new? Morales likes to pick on women who are vocal and active in politics. Just ask Loretta Hunnicutt, Kyrsten Sinema, Dolores Huerta, Janet Marcotte, DeeDee Blase, Adelita Grijalva, Gabby Giffords, Regina Romero, and Kristel Foster--to name a handful of his past targets. 

Sexism aside, I take issue with Morales' assertion that progressives take action and protest on the street corners when unions need our help but not when Latinos need our help. This false dichotomy implies that only white people belong to unions and that's why only white people care about them. Wrong. 

After the jump, watch the anti-SB1070 protest video, the protest video against anti-union legislation proposed by the Arizona Legislature, and testimony regarding anti-union activities at the IBEW Hall. You'll see progressives standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Latinos in all three videos.  (BTW, in the photo above, that's me in the turquoise dress, between the two cops, covering the UnDocuBus protest in Charlotte.)

Conspiracy theories, circular firing squads, and party darlings: Have AZ Dems jumped the shark?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Left-wing Facebook pages, blogs, and online-only radio news shows are on fire with charges and counter charges about the Arizona Democratic Party's backroom politics, party darlings, and the quest for party solidarity during the 2012 elections. For those of you safely ensconced down here in sunny Baja Arizona, here's a news flash you won't see in the Arizona Daily Star: for weeks, a tiny band of Democrats have been picketing in front of the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters and protesting the party's practices.

The crux of the matter is the appearance of favoritism by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Maricopa Democratic Party, and the Pima County Democratic Party. So, everyone has favorite candidates; what's the big deal you ask? It's OK for individuals to have favorites-- candidates they work for and raise funds for; it's decidely not OK for the party to choose "party darlings" and grease the skids for them during the primary season. Favoritism during a primary season squashes dissent, suppresses the candidacy of challengers, creates bad blood in the party, and hurts democracy. Here are a few examples.

Pima County 

In the CD8 special election to fill Gabrielle Giffords' seat, former Giffords' aide Ron Barber stepped into the race after several Baja Dems announced their candidacy or were thinking about it (publically)-- State Senators Paula Aboud and Matt Heinz, State Representative Steve Farley, and Southern Arizonan Nan Walden. Everyone expected Barber to be the sentimental shoe-in favorite and a placeholder Congressman for the CD8 seat but not to run in the general election for the new CD2 seat (a bluer district thanks to redistricting). After Barber announced he would run in the November general election, all of his would-be primary challengers-- except Heinz-- mysteriously dropped out. (Consipracy theorists like myself assumed people were strongly encouraged to step aside and make way for Barber.) In the Arizona Daily Star recently, Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers was qouted as saying there are people in the party who are encouraging Heinz to drop out. Personally, I think Blue Dog Barber has been a huge disappointment in the 2 or so weeks he has been in Congress-- most recently voting with Republicans and pandering to the National Rifle Association by voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. I lament that the other Dems dropped out of the primary so quickly; Heinz should definitely stay in the race.

In the 2012 CD7 election, the Democratic Party decided to not allow Congressman Raul Grijalva's primary challengers access to party data, which would have facilitated targeted precinct walking and phone banking. (Don't get me wrong here; I am in no way criticizing the Congressman. I like Grijalva, one of the true progressives in Congress, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have donated a whopping $90 to his campaign, and my husband has canvassed for him many times.) It keeps incumbents on their toes when they have challengers.

Speaking of incumbents, in the 2011 local elections, the Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee endorsed the three City Council incumbents almost 6 months before the primary. Only Councilwoman Regina Romero had a primary challenger, but who knows how many would-be challengers were stopped in their tracks by this pre-emptive move. In addition, the party spent thousands of dollars to bankroll a website and smear campaign against Romero's Democratic challenger Joe Flores. This was unnecessary nastiness against a fellow Dem, in my opinion. There was no way Flores would have overtaken Romero, so why stir up bad blood in the party? Endorsing all of the incumbents is a bad practice. Councilwoman Shirley Scott (a died-in-the-wool Blue Dog who was tainted by the long-running Rio Nuevo scandal) should have been primary'ed. Councilman Paul Cunningham (a neophyte Blue Dog) had been appointed to his seat; the Democrats never got a chance to size him up against other Dems. 

Maricopa County

Facebook is on fire with charges that Maricopa County Democratic Party Chair Ann Wallack, Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director Luis Heredia, and newly elected Arizona Democratic Party Chair Bill Roe are determining which Dem primary candidates are "viable" and, consequently, are steering money and "boots on the ground" toward those candidates with the bucks-- thus ensuring that the lesser known and poorly funded candidates will fall by the wayside (according to the people making the charges). There is even a Facebook page created to oust Wallack from her position as county chair. (Here's a hint for the activists: find an elected precinct committee person to run against her for party chair when the party reorganizes after the November election.)

Two "party darlings" often used as examples are Ann Kirkpatrick for Congressional District 1 and Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff. There are charges that Wallack has strongly endorsed Penzone over reform candidate John Rowan and has manipulated meeting agendas to deny Rowan and his supporters time at the podium. This is clearly meddling with the primary process. As county chairs, both Wallack and Pima County's Rogers should give all primary challengers equal access to party resources, databases, and legislative district meetings (where said "boots-on-the-ground" meet to hear candidates and issues). 

There are further charges that the statewide party is acting in a racist manner-- particularly toward Kirkpatrick's challenger Wenona Benally Baldenegro. Benally Baldenegro, who has vowed not to take corporate donations, has raised less than one tenth the funds Kirkpartick has. I think the charges of widespread racism in the party maybe a bit thin (particularly since the Pima Dems' "party darlings" are Latinos), but there is evidence of favoritism before the primary. For example, there are charges that Heredia (a Latino) started an e-mail campaign encouraging people to drop their support for Benally Baldenegro (a Navajo who is married to a Latino). If this happened (and I say "if" since I have not seen said e-mail), it is definitely manipulative and inappropriate. 

My point is...

The party should not be choosing which candidates are viable. All Dems should be treated equally by the party and given an equal chance to succeed or fail on the merrits of their ideas and the strength of their campaign organizations. All declared candidates, who have filed papers, should be given equal access to party resources, voter data, and party foot soldiers and should be allowed to speak at statewide and local party functions. 

The people should choose candidates in the primary election; it is NOT the party's role to take sides.

The bottomline is...

The bottomline is that we need to get money out of our election system. It appears as if a primary deciding factor in the party's determination of candidate "viability" is money. According to the Federal Elections Commission website, Progressive candidate Benally Baldenegro had raised around $75,000 by March 31, 2012. Blue Dog corporate candidate Kirkpartick-- who had more than that in her coffers last year before Benally Baldenegro even entered the race-- had raised over $990,000 by March 31, 2012.

Psychologically, people want to back a winner. Rightly or wrongly, the vast money difference between these two makes it appear as if Kirkpatrick is the better candidate because she has the big bucks.

Dream with me for a while about a publicly financed elections-- not unlike the Arizona Clean Elections system or Tucson's clean elections system. What if after qualifying with a certain number of signatures and $5 donations, all candidates received the same amount of money to run their campaigns? What a concept-- a truly level playing field. Although there would undoubtedly be far less advertising, maybe we would have improved communication and real messaging-- instead of spin, lies, and smear campaigns.

With publicly financed elections, maybe the voice of "the little guy"-- as my Mom would put it-- would be heard.

Three Sonorans joins FOX News Latino and discourages voting

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Local firebrand blogger D.A. Morales (AKA the Three Sonorans), who was ousted from the TucsonCitizen.com for his "reckless disregard for the truth," has joined FOX News Latino. Judging by FOX News' reputation... well, you get the picture.

Except for Republicans Attorney General Tom Horne, Former State Senate President Russell Pearce, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who were regularly (and justifiably) vilified in Morales' column, he generally focused on taking potshots at local and statewide Democrats. His June 1 article on the FOX News Latino website, he encourages Latinos not to vote in the Ron Barber-Jesse Kelly-Charlie Manolakis special election

As a Democrat I got to vote against ALIPAC-endorsed Jesse Kelly twice in the last two years, and will possibly vote a third time if the Tea Party Republican runs in the November election.

I also get the opportunity to not vote for the Democratic candidate to represent me once again.

I did not vote for Giffords after her attack on immigrants in which blame was placed on a Mexican, without any evidence, for the 2010 murder of the white rancher Rob Krentz. This was used to further militarize the international border, pushing even more migrant human beings out into the dangerous deserts southwest of Tucson.

I will also not vote for Ron Barber in the special election being held right now.

I totally agree with Morales' assessment of Kelly, Giffords, and Barber, but I don't agree with him on not voting. Every Democratic non-vote is a vote for Teapublican automaton Kelly. This is how we got a Teapublican US House of Representatives and a Teapublican Arizona Legislature: Democrats stayed home. This is a perfect message for FAUX News to promote to Latinos.  

I lived in Giffords' district as long as she was in office. Despite her Blue Dog credentials, I voted for her many times, but I called or e-mailed her office hundreds of times to encourage her to vote progressively. Sometimes she did; sometimes she didn't. Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I always thought she listened. Working with her, I had some hope that she would vote the way I wanted her to. This is in stark contrast to US Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl; there was never a prayer they would ever vote progressively. In fact, they actively worked against issues that I hold dear... universal healthcare, true immigration reform (not militarization), clean elections, sound environmental policy, fair taxation, public education, a living wage, women's rights, and choice. 

Despite his Blue Dog credentials, I voted for Barber. If he gets elected, he can expect to hear from me also.  

Do you want someone you can potentially influence or someone who will totally ignore you? If you want to be ignored, don't vote but don't complain about the results... more for the 1%, less for the rest.

If you live in the old CD8, please vote on or before June 12.

Barber vs Kelly vs Manolakis: The most boring debate ever

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The Congressional District 8 (CD8) special election debate on Wednesday night was the most boring debate I have ever heard.

High school graduate Jesse Kelly repeated the Teapublican talking points faithfully-- guns, God, guv'ment-- but he forgot the gay part of their message. Former Gabrielle Giffords aid Ron Barber revealed himself as a true Blue Dog (AKA Republican-lite). And the Green Party's Charlie Manolakis did what any self-respecting third party candidate would do; he raised issues that the two major party candidates would rather not mention-- like universal health care, the Occupy Movement, and the 99%. 

The only thing that made the debate less somnamulant was the live chat line provided by the Arizona Daily Star. I had great fun jousting with FOX News zombies like local radio attack dog Jon Justice (who kept declaring verbal victories for Kelly when none existed). Of course, the FOXies were all for a double border fence (championed by Kelly) and further militarization of the border (promoted by both Kelly and Barber) but totally against "Obamacare" (which Kelly wants to end and Barber weakly sorta defends). One brilliant commenter even declared, "Not everyone needs health insurance." (He's either on Medicare or just foolish. Chat line chatter here.)

By far the longest discussions focused on the economy, the border, healthcare, and Rosemont Mine (Kelly for, the other two against). Unless I missed them between chat posts, ending the wars, public education, true immigration reform, job creation (beyond cutting taxes for the rich, as Kelly proposes), the plight of the 99% and the disappearing middle class, the Republican War on Women, and broader environmental issues were not addressed.

On the economy, Kelly blabbered about the folly of raising taxes (AKA letting the Bush tax cuts sunset) during a down economy and pushed for further tax cuts for the rich and smaller government. His transparent defense of the corporatist class was appalling. Barber said he would not vote to increase taxes on the middle class but believes that the rich should "pay their fair share"-- President Obama's original position during the big tax cut fight of December 2010. Every time the economy or job creation came up, Kelly touted tax cuts for the job creators-- ignoring the fact that trickle down economics has failed on all accounts, except for making the rich richer.

On immigration, all three candidates focused on border security and the drug-related violence in Mexico and ignored the messier issues-- like the role US policy (NAFTA and the War on Drugs) has in creation of the violence; the plight and exploitation of undocumented workers; deportation and family stress; border crosser deaths in the desert; and the DREAM Act.

Predictably, Kelly was the most militant on border issues-- calling for a double fence along the whole Arizona border and more law enforcement. (Kelly wants less government except when it comes to the military.) Focusing on militarization with electronic gadgets as well as more boots on the ground, Barber's position wasn't much different. Manolakis introduced a few chuckles into the debate when suggested that border patrol agents should ride camels because they're suited for the desert and cost less to maintain. (Charlie, although you're idea makes some sense, it doesn't go with the John Wayne cowboy image Arizonans have of themselves.)

None of the candidates addressed the roles that the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) and the War on Drugs have played in creation of border violence, near lawlessness in Mexico, and dire poverty south of the border. President Nixon's War on Drugs has worked as well as Prohibition did; it has increased drug use and helped organized crime become more organized. (Check out the PBS documentary on Prohibition. The similarities to today's situation with marijuana prohibition are too glaring to ignore.)

On healthcare, Kelly decried rising healthcare costs and repeatedly called for repeal of Obamacare but offered no solutions for the future-- although he was asked to do so multiple times. Presumably, he goes along with the right-wing's call for the return of free-market health insurance, which is what got us into this costly mess. Ironically, Obamacare (which is based upon Romneycare, a Republican initiative) supports private insurance-- except for a few important changes like prohibiting the denial insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions, expanding coverage to millions of Americans, and providing a minimum benefits package. Barber gets points for bringing up negotiating drug price discounts with Big Pharma. (President Bush II and his all-Republican Congress created Medicare Part D-- the Medicare prescription drug benefit-- as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical giants. The US is the only country in the world that pays top dollar for drugs and does not negotiate volume discounts.) Otherwise, Barber showed faint support for the worthwhile parts of Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare). Manolakis gets bigger points for championing universal healthcare. Medicare for All is really the best solution to rising costs, broader coverage, and curtailment of unnecessary procedures.

Overall, the debate was too civil-- with the majority party candidates repeating talking points. Except for the camels, negotiation of drug prices, and the brief mention of universal healthcare, no new ideas were discussed. 

The CD8 vote is happening now. If you live in Giffords' old district, as I do, check your mailbox for your ballot. If you want to go old school, you can go to the polls on June 12. The winner of this election will serve out Giffords' term.

Thanks to redistricting, the old CD8 will morf into the new CD2 for the general election in November. Barber has announced that he will run for that office also. Marth McSally, one of Kelly's challengers in the recent Republican primary, also has said she will run again. I'm hoping that other Democrats-- particularly State Senator Paula Aboud-- will enter the CD2 primary race to spice it up. Mr. Civility's mild-mannered, middle-of-the-road approach is more suited to campaign administration and not the blood sport of American politics. 

 

What Will Gabby Do?

Posted by Michael Bryan

Gabby Giffords finds herself in a fairly unique position: she is no longer a Member of Congress, but unquestionably has a vast reservoir of goodwill, respect, and love from her former constituents, regardless of party. To a far greater degree than any other resigning Member I can recall, Gabby has the power to influence the future political direction of her district. Arguably, should she choose to endorse a candidate for her former seat, that endorsement could have considerable, possibly dispositive, influence over who will take her place.

If her choice is well-considered, it could very well be determinative of the result of the upcoming elections in CD8, and it's successor CD2.

So, who will Gabby choose? I don't know.

Who could she choose? I have a few ideas.

Click through to keep reading...

Welcome Back Gabby

Gabby,

We are so glad you are back with us. We missed you. And we love you. You are an inspiration to our nation. Stay strong. Get better.

Peace. Love. Gabby.

- the BlogForArizona Crew