Blog For Arizona

The New BlogForArizona is Live

By Michael Bryan

Tonight we updated the DNS servers to point all our domains to the new Word Press hosted site. BlogForArizona.com, BlogForArizona.net (until the DNS are all updated this is link for new site), and .org will all point to the new site, at which all new content will appear.

The Typepad site (arizona.typepad.com) on which you are reading this post, will become an archive site. Eventually, all comments will be disabled. If you are arriving at this site via a search engine or a referring link, please consider joining us in discussing Arizona politics at:

www.BlogForArizona.com

Thanks for your patience and patronage during this transisition

 

SB1062 is dead

By Michael Bryan

Stick a fork in Arizona's ill-conceived and mean-spirited anti-gay legislation, which is making a stink throughout the national media. Arizona's de facto Governor has pronounced it dead: Chuck Coughlin has publicly announced his advice to de jure Governor Brewer to veto the bill. The rest is merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.

A New BlogForArizona

By Michael Bryan

For the past several weeks, we here at BlogForArizona have been working quietly on a complete redesign of the blog. We are now in the process of rolling out the redesign. Over the next few days we are asking for your understanding and patience as we implement the new site.

The main difference you will see as readers is that the new blog will be accessible at www.blogforarizona.com, and the current site will be archived at arizona.typepad.com. If you have bookmarked BlogForArizona, you might want to check and see if you have might have bookmarked the address of the archive site.

All our old posts will also have been transferred to www.blogforarizona.com, but some may lack graphics and some links may be problematic, so older posts might look better on the archive. Once the transition is complete (we estimate early next week), all new posts will appear at www.blogforarizona.com only.

You may need to re-register for commenting at the new Word Press-based site. Hopefully, we will have better response and load times, better searching, better social media integration, and some great new features enabled by the richer ecosystem of Word Press application developers. We will be experimenting over the coming weeks and welcome your suggestions.

Thanks for your support and interest. New posts may continue to appear below until the transition is complete. Please continue to access our blog at www.blogforarizona.com to ensure you are seeing the latest version of the blog.

Thank You David!

By Michael Bryan

I think I can safely speak for the entire staff and readership of BlogForArizona when I say "Thank you!" to David Safier for his last 6 years of hard work, and the fun and satisfaction we have all derived from David's efforts. We are all looking forward to his continuing contributions to public discourse with his new and larger platform at Tucson Weekly's The Range.

Speaking just for myself now, I want to acknowledge David's contributions and praise him mercilessly. I am gratified and excited by David's new project and I think Jim Nintzel incredibly wise to have sought out David to add some punch to the Weekly's blog.

When I first met David during the election integrity trial of 2007, and invited him to co-live-blog the event, little did I know what an ideal partner and collaborator he would become. At that point, BlogForArizona was still just my own private obsession. David changed that for the better by making BlogForArizona his own obsession - and we are all better for it. David deserves a great deal of the credit for the successful transformation of this blog into a group project over the past several years.

David has brought his intelligence and wit to bear on a project that too few of us undertake, and less of us succeed at: public citizenship. David has become one of Arizona's most vocal and eloquent public citizens. It has been one of my chief satisfactions in founding and running BlogForArizona that it has become a platform for David, and the other excellent public citizens who collaborate on BlogForArizona, to answer that vital calling.

David has cultivated his entrepreneurial energy, his deep love of public policy, his concern and compassion for our childrens' futures, and his engaging and interesting authorial voice, to create a public personae that will deservedly continue to grow in influence and authority. Through his selfless efforts and energy David been a tireless advocate and resource for Arizona's citizens. He has become a regular guest on Buckmaster's Blogger Beat, a regular contributor to the Explorer's op-ed pages, and more recently, a frequent contributor to the Tucson Weekly's opinion page, all while blogging regularly and engagingly here on BlogForArizona.

Most impressively, David has accomplished all that not by being a bomb-throwing, divisive gadfly, but by being a well informed, fair, and thoughtful citizen seeking to share his concerns and insights with the public. David is role model and exemplar of how the internet has empowered citizens to take an active role in making their communities better.

BlogForArizona is poorer for David's departure, but Arizona is better off because more people will be able to engage with this extraordinary citizen's work.

If you haven't yet done so, please share in the comments your thoughts and well-wishes for David as he moves on to his next project.

Happy Obamacare Day

By Michael Bryan

To the critics of the ACA here in Arizona, I present this story, published yesterday, from the NYT:

Kathy Hornbach of Tucson is not wasting any time before using her new health insurance coverage, which took effect on New Year’s Day. Ms. Hornbach, 57, has an appointment with a cardiologist on Thursday for a stress test.

“I’ve had some heart palpitations, and my mom’s side has a history of heart problems starting early,” she said Wednesday in a telephone interview. “So it’s mostly just to double-check that everything is O.K.”

Ms. Hornbach, who has had breast cancer and retired early from the technology industry, said that insurance companies in Arizona had refused to cover her until about two years ago, when she got a policy with monthly premiums of $285 and a deductible of $5,500 a year. Last month, using the federal insurance exchange, she bought a midlevel silver plan with lower premiums and deductible.

“It’s a better policy — lower out-of-pocket, more choice of doctors,” she said. “This is a very happy day.”

The insurance system is now working better - far from perfect - but better, for a real person with real health challenges. That's what the ACA was designed to do; and it's actually doing it.

Obamacare was always designed as a pragmatic approach to reducing the worst abuses and problems of the private insurance system, and to expand our current jury-rigged mixed system of health insurance to millions who could not afford it - or to those who were not ideal customers to the pre-ACA industry.

It's working. It's not perfect - far from it. But it's working for Ms. Hornbach, and millions of others. I now invite Arizona's Republican Congresscritters to explain to Ms. Hornbach and those like her how Obamacare is so terrible we needed to shut down the government rather than allow those millions to benefit? That's exactly the question that needs to be asked of every single Republican running for reelection to Congress in 2014.

Gosar, Franks, Salmon and Schweikert Gang up to Kick the Poor in the Teeth

By Michael Bryan

The Republicans of Arizona's Congressional delegation ganged up with their Tea Party hooligan buddies to kick the poorest and most defenseless among us while we are down last week. The bill slashing SNAP (food stamps) passed on a purely partisan vote, including those of all four of Arizona's Republican Congressional Representatives, cutting $40 billion from the program over the next decade.

Of course, the bill won't become law, but will likely become the basis for compromise" -but still crippling - cuts to the program; that's a policy that most Americans (more than 70%) say is the wrong way to cut government spending. The result will be more poverty and food-insecurity, adding to the staggering 50 million Americans already living on the edge of insolvency, poverty and hunger, and pushing millions of those already hurting deeper into misery.

Here in Arizona, a monthly average of one million Arizonans were assisted by SNAP in 2011. The number qualifying for assistance more than doubled following the 2008 fiscal crisis. These folks are the hard-working poor and their dependent children, and seniors living on insufficient fixed incomes, not "takers" living high on their average of $133 dollars a month in benefits.

SNAP isn't just good for the recipients of aid, it's good for our economy. Each dollar spent on food support generates $1.80 in economic activity. With over $1.5 billion a year in aid in Arizona alone, that translates to an ongoing boost to Arizona's economy of $2.7 billion a year. Apparently, these four congressmen think that feeding the poor and supporting Arizona's economic recovery are a poor use of your tax dollars. Most of you disagree, and should tell them as much.

There are hundreds of thousands of families who will be harmed by these cuts just in the districts of these four pro-hunger Arizona Republicans. Many families will fall into poverty and their children will know hunger because of the heartless, un-Christian, immoral votes of these men. The Congressional GOP has gone insane, leaving even the majority of Republicans (60%) who support assistance to the poor scratching their heads in wonder at the heartlessness and depravity of their elected representatives.

I hope these Representatives will be forced to look those men, women, and children in the eyes back in their districts and explain why, at a time when the Federal deficit has been cut by half since Obama took office, this essential anti-poverty program had to be so drastically restricted.

Shame of each of you, Representatives Gosar, Franks, Salmon and Schweikert. I challenge each of you to answer for your immoral vote to consign millions of our fellow citizens to poverty and hunger.

Drinking Liberally with Peter Eichstaedt 4/24

Hello liberals,

Notice the time change: next week will meet at 7 PM!

Our special guest for Wednesday Drinking Liberally at the Shanty on 4th Ave will start the presentation at 7:30pm, right after his lecture at the U of A School of Journalism. He is in a book tour around the country and will be in Tucson just for one day. Don't miss this opportunity!

Peter Eichstaedt is the former country director in Afghanistan and former Africa Editor for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. He has lived and worked in the Balkans, eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and eastern Africa, as well as The Hague, Netherlands, where he covered African war crimes trials.

More info at http://www.petereichstaedt.com/index.htm

Ten Years After the Iraq Invasion, Lessons Remain Unlearned

By Michael Bryan

Now that the Iraq war has been "ended" by Obama's draw down of active combat troops (I scare quote here because of the thousands of embassy personnel and private defense contractors still in country), and the ten year anniversary of the invasion is upon us, it is perhaps time to try for a little perspective on this passage in American political history.

I continue to view the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a massive crime of control fraud perpetrated by the Bush junta to extract hundreds of billions from the public fisc to line the pockets of the corporate welfare state wards known collectively as the defense industry. But the historical treatment of that fraud and its long-term impact on American government and politics is what I think deserves more discussion.

As I write, a concerted effort at historical revision by many of the key players in the Iraq fraud is underway throughout the media. People who perpetrated and participated in the Bush Administration's national security follies now seek to cast the Iraq fraud as a successful, if costly, mission to free the Iraqi people from tyranny.

 

That effort is a subtle poison undermining American security.

BlogForArizona Welcomes Tom Prezelski of R3

By Michael Bryan

Exciting blog news! Former Arizona Representative and blog brother Tom Prezelski is going to be posting here at BlogForArizona as well as his blog, RumRomanismAndRebellion. Tom brings a wealth of legislative experience and a deep fund of knowledge of Arizona's political and cultural history to his pithy and insightful commentary.

Tom recently took over R3 from his brother Ted, who was obliged to stop blogging by professional obligations. Tom has decided that life as a solo blogger is just not as fun as being part of a community (and he's not able to post as often as he'd like due to work and his new book deal - which I'm sure he'll tell you about himself), so he decided he's like to cross-post over here at BlogForArizona.

Welcome, Tom! Glad to have you here.

 

 

Washington Post Names BlogForArizona Arizona's Best Political Blog

By Michael Bryan

The Washington Post has named BlogForArizona the best political blog in Arizona.

Congratulations to the wonderful bloggers who have hung their shingles here at BlogForArizona! I think our bloggers are the best, so it's nice to know that readers think so, too.

I will note that we did not campaign for the nomination, nor the selection. The selection was entirely based on readers' spontaneous nominations. Thanks to all of you!

New posts will appear below...

Our Dysfunctional Political System and Gun Violence

By Michael Bryan

Ask Ron Barber to lead on sensible gun policies.

Let me preface this post by stating a few facts: I am a gun owner, I am a sportsman (though much more so when I was younger, than now), I had a concealed carry permit (when such a thing was still required in AZ), and I am a prosecutor who has seen first-hand the tragic results of guns in the wrong hands.

The growing epidemic of mass shootings in this country now stands at 62 incidents since 1982, according to a Mother Jones magazine investigation. The nexus between gun laws becoming ever-more lax and poor mental health care and invervention has been and remains a major public safety issue in this country.

Yet Congress has done almost nothing to address the very real and present danger to public safety posed by the combination of madness and easily available weapons designed to kill many people very quickly.

Our political system has become so dysfunctional that even a problem that is murdering innocents on a regular basis cannot seem to be addressed. Our policy-making systems are so captured by special interests, so riven by ideological extremism, and so paralyzed by an unconstitutional and anti-democratic super-majority requirement in the Senate, that it seems naive to even hope that our leaders can propose and pass reasonable policies to slow the carnage.

A Thanksgiving Trip to Alice's Restaurant

By Michael Bryan

Happy Thanksgiving!

A Thanksgiving activity that could now be considered a popular tradition is the enjoyment of a rendition of Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant. Tonight, I am going to local Tucson restaurant Acacia for their Thanksgiving menu. Hopefully, the police will not become involved...

Have a traditional listen to Arlo's adventure after the click...

McCain's Slide into Irrelevance

By Michael Bryan

Senator McCain has embarrassed himself, and the state of Arizona, over his baseless attacks on Susan Rice and the Obama Administration regarding the Benghazi attack.

It is now clear, and has been since Petraeus' testimony, that Ambassador Rice's comments on the attack were vetted by the intellegence community and reference to terrorist involvement was removed during an interagency intelligence review, and not by the White House, as McCain baselessly and slanderously claimed.

McCain's fact-free campaign against Rice seems clearly to have been motivated by a desire to have himself appointed to a newly created select investigatory committee. He is losing his ranking position on of the Senate Armed Services Committee due to GOP term limits on key committee tenures. The only way to keep himself at the forefront of the foriegn policy discussion was to invent a pretext for a his appointment to an new investigative committee, which he would have used to punish the man who beat him in 2008, and the nation that rejected his leadership.

Mr. McCain, it is time to go. Your service to your country was notable and honorable, but now you are merely soiling your legacy. 

 

Want to Leave the Union? Just Move...

By Michael Bryan

It seems a lot of folks are so upset by that black Muslim Communist winning a second term that they are ready to split... from the Union. People from more than 20 states have created petitions on the White House web site to allow their states to leave the Union. Including Arizona, of course. You can get a look at this modern George Washington who started Arizona's petition in a report from CBS5.

I actually can sympathize with these folks to some extent. I was pretty darn upset and disappointed when George W. Bush stole the Presidency (IMHO) in 2000. I said, and wrote, a bunch of stupid and angry things at the time. I'm sure that many will similarly regret their pique and come back to their senses when the black helicopters fail to land on their lawns.

What I never did was give up on America. These folks seem to have done so. Thier hatred and fear of Obama, and liberalism (or to be more stingingly accurate - moderate conservatism) in general, is apparently greater than their love of their country. I find this surprising. I never suspected that the conservatives I disagree with didn't love their country and respect our democratic system - now I have evidence to the contrary.

If you love America, you stay and fight to make it a better place - no matter what happens in government. Conservatives and jingoists (if there is any non-overlapping domain in that Venn diagram) often say, "America - love it, or leave it!" Doesn't it mean you don't love it if you choose to leave it? 

Just look at America today. We have a re-elected Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, we are winding down Bush's wars, and America has a growing sense of purpose in addressing the massive political and economic problems of our nation. Who could have predicted this in the slough of despond we progressives found ourselves in 2000? Would any of that have been possible if Democrats had decamped for Canada en masse, or tried to sever our liberal states from the Union?

If you love your country, you stay and fight to make it better - you don't slink off with your toys because you don't like the way the game is going. Maybe that's why the cowards who sign these petitions to the White House don't display thier last names. They are (rightfully) embarrassed.

Governor Brewer Signals Support of Comprehensive Immigration... and Then Walks it Back

By Michael Bryan

hat tip to Crooks & Liars:

Perhaps Governor Dingbat's staff should just stop allowing her to do live interviews.

Brahm Resnick interviewed Brewer post-election and prodded her regarding the softening in her party nationally on comprehensive immigration reform after the drubbing her ticket got among Latinos (a 44% gap on the Presidential line). He asked Brewer if she would now be open to a comprehensive immigration deal now that her enforcement first position has so thoroughly alienated Latino voters.

"But here's the thing," Resnik pointed out. "With John Boehner and Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and [Maricopa County Attorney] Bill Montgomery -- what he said in particular was, 'You know what? We can do both at once. We can secure the border and do comprehensive immigration reform.' Is that something you're on with? Because it sounds like you are just a secure-the-border-first person."

"What ever works," Brewer replied. "If we can do both at the same time, I'm fine and dandy with that. But we cannot resolve these kinds of issues today and then have the problems still existing."

Well, that's certainly a new tune for Brewer.

Of course, she didn't really mean it. On Sunday, KPNX reported that Brewer's office had contacted Resnick after the interview was recorded on Friday to walk back her support for comprehensive immigration reform in concert with securing the border.

Spokesman Matt Benson said, "the governor still believes in securing the border first," Resnik wrote. "He added that she was willing to 'come to the table' to deal with all immigration issues. Later Friday, the governor's office issued a statement reaffirming her 'secure the border first' stance."

It should not come as a surprise that Brewer's head remains buried in the sand. Toward the end of the interview she clearly implied that the Obama Administration intentionally leaves the Tucson sector "unsecured" in order to whip up racial animus to secure the Latino vote.

When asked if the GOP, and the AZGOP especially, deserved any blame for alienating Latinos, she replied, "No, President Obama, in the last four years, they've had four years to get our borders secured and they refused to do it, but yet we know they can. We know that they can secure the borders. Why won't they secure the border? Because they wanted that out there because they knew that they could turn it into an issue of all about racism."

Say what? So Obama has purposely left the border insecure (despite cleverly covering his tracks by plowing more billions into enforcement, deporting at a record clip, and radically expanding manpower on the border) in order to alarm white folks so much that they'll go batshit, pass a bunch or racist legislation and piss off Latinos, so that in turn Latinos will feel so disrespected by the GOP that they'll vote for him in droves? Now we're deep in the crazy...

Reality adjustment just isn't in the cards for politicians like Brewer and Arpaio. They are incapable of acknowledging that their belief that the Obama Administration and Dems are exploiting racism is nothing more than projection of their own racist motives onto the opposition. The AZGOP has been successfully exploiting racial animus and the fears of white America to win elections for several cycles now. Expecting them to stop now and support a reasonable resolution is like expecting a Coatimundi to ditch its own tail rings.

If the GOP wants a fresh start with Latino voters, they can only do so with fresh GOP politicians who didn't cut their teeth on denigrating Latinos and scaring the shit out of white voters (with headless corpses in the desert, for example...) to get elected. Of course, that disqualifies nearly every currently elected AZ GOP pol... 

See the video after the click...

CD2 Count Watch 10/10 21:30

By Michael Bryan

Tonight Barber retains a razor-thin margin of just over 200 votes, or .11%, just outside the automatic recount limit. Still no discernable momentum by either candidate to pull away from the dead heat.

Prosecuting Abortion

By Michael Bryan

I have had a few thoughts about the idea and practicality of criminalizing and prosecuting abortion, as the GOP seems intent on doing recently. But, wow, this prosecutor discusses it more thoroughly and passionately than I could. Go read it. Here's a few samples:

This is what happens when we start second-guessing reproductive health decisions being made by pregnant girls and women. We wade into a thicket where, suddenly, lawyers and judges and police officers are making decisions that we are so incredibly ill-equipped to make. Where people like me end up telling pregnant women, “hey, what happened to you wasn’t horrifying enough for ME to allow YOU to terminate this pregnancy. Sorry. But remember, this is all part of God’s plan for you.”

...

So, personhood for a cluster of cells means that abortion could equal aggravated murder. Really, do Republicans want us prosecuting girls and women for the aggravated homicide of their zygotes? Is that the plan here? Do they actually want to impose the death penalty, or will life in prison be sufficient to satisfy their pathological need to punish women for the crime of being sexually active? Of course, if the woman is guilty, so is the man who facilitates her in procuring an abortion – boys, if you take your girlfriend to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, we’re going to imprison you both for murder. It’s called a “conspiracy.” In case you were wondering.

...

And all of this chatter and talk is offensive, it is demeaning, it is patronizing, and it is unconscionable. As someone who has worked with rape victims – including some who were pregnant, some who were children, and some who were pregnant children – for over a decade, I would strongly suggest that you all think a little harder about what you really want here and about what you are really proposing.



Amen.

I would just add one comment on the subject. The State should not be in the business of prosecuting people based on religious law. There is no secular consensus about the ethical or medical status of a foetus prior to viability outside of the mother's womb. Abortion activists want to shape the civil law to fit their purely religious conviction (which is of fairly recent vintage, btw) that a foetus, even a zygote, is a full human being with a 'soul', deserving of the same rights and protections as any other person.

Conservatives have a buzz-word for the practice of enforcing religious dogma by the state: Sharia Law. 'Personhood' laws, anti-abortion laws, and contraceptive bans are Christian Sharia Law, plain and simple. The religious right doesn't like Sharia Law because they don't like Islam. I don't like Sharia Law (of any religion) because I believe America is established as a purely secular state. In America, no religion gets to enforce it's dogma through the coersive power of the state.

I find it offensive and unacceptable, and down-right un-American, to prosecute someone criminally for violating someone else's religious convictions. Such use of civil law violates the establishment clause, in my view. The State cannot criminalize abortion or other reproductive technologies, in my view, without establishing de facto a particular religious conviction as the official state religion.

Only after a foetus is viable does the State have any rational, secular interest in relgulating or restricting abortion - that is fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade. There is no rational basis for the abortion and contraceptive laws conservatives want to enforce, other than enforcing their own narrow religious dogma on the rest of us.

BlogForArizona Gets a Little Facelift

By Michael Bryan

Post-election is always a nice time to do some tidying up around the blog.

A few things have changed:

• The Navigation bar across the top of the page, just under the site's banner, now has links to posts by a particular BfAZ authors. In case you like to follow a particular author and would like to see what they have posted lately, you can see posts by that author only easily with these links.
• Weeded out some dead links and dead wood in the sidebar features. Look for new features and links in coming days. Please suggest your favorite liberal and progressive groups and organizations in AZ whom you think deserve some recognition.

More changes will be coming soon. Stay tuned, and please leave us suggestions of features and changes you would like to see in the comments, and you can take our survey.

Interesting Exit Poll Data in Arizona

By Michael Bryan

Reviewing some very nice data from exit polling posted on The Arizona Conservative, I came across a few interesting factiods that are informative about the thinking of Arizona's electors. I suggest a look. You may find some interesting insights of your own for the comments.

First, was this:

Not terribly surprising that those voters who believed that Obama was primarily responsible for the current economic problems would vote for Romney. Very surprising, however, that 15% of those who blamed Bush would nonetheless vote for more of the same from Romney. Maybe those folks think that Bush wasn't sufficiently "supply sided" in his economic policies and want Romney to finish off the middle class?

Also interesting that 31% of those who think Romney favors the wealthy still voted for him: I guess that those 31% think they are in the 1% who would have benefitted of Romney's agenda? I don't think that math works... which demonstrates the brilliance of conservative propaganda.

Also interesting to me was this:

At first, I could not figure out why fully 44% of those who want Arizona to recognize same-sex marriage would vote for Romney, who opposes such policies. Then I realized that, of course, they were voting for Romney despite his position. They want same-sex marriage recognized, but it is not a high enough priority to overcome their support for Romney on other issues. In other words, these are 'fiscal conservatives' who believe (wrongly...) that Romney would be a superior choice on other (more salient) issues, but who now support marriage equality. That's an strong resevoir of support for marriage equality inside the GOP coalition. It may not be a strongly motivating value in a candidate campaign, but it could be decisive in an issue-oriented campaign, such as a ballot question.

Chris Hayes had a segment on his Saturday show about Arizona's exit polls and racialized politics that was very thought provoking. See that clip after the click...

Barber Still Holding Slight Lead in CD2

By Michael Bryan

Ron once again holds a slight lead over Martha. The lead keeps changing hands and neither is pulling away yet. Given that the margin has consistently been within near the .5% .01% or 200 vote requirement for a recount under Arizona law, I suspect that even when the ballots are all counted and the result certified, this race will still not quite be over.

 

Nailed It. For Once... And Future?

By Michael Bryan

I predicted an Obama Blowout as the most likely result of tonight's election.

"Blowout Obama (likelihood 69.9%):

I consider this to be the most likely final map for this election. Obama wins all the close swing states and blows Romney away decisively. I can forsee the possibility that Romney will take Florida through voter access manipulation and the sort of electoral corruption in close races that the GOP excels in, which takes Obama down to Nate Silver's predicted outcome of Obama at just over 300 electoral votes. I'm a little more optimistic than Nate. If it were legal to bet on election outcomes, my money would be on Obama with a 300 electoral vote floor. The race can be called as soon as the polls close on the East Coast."

The results have pretty much tracked that prediction perfectly. As I write, Obama's EV count is 303 and FL is still only 'unofficially' called for Obama. If you add FL's 29 EVs to the current 303 count, you get my predicted EV count of 332.

Now, let's look at my prediction for the electoral map of 2016! Of course, replace the names of the nominees, but here's what I'm dreaming of in the next election. This map only includes three more states - Arizona, Texas and North Carolina - and they will undoubtedly be closely fought, but the growing influence, size, and activation of Latino voters might place these state in play next time. Note that the Southwest is quickly becoming a Democratic stronghold.

Let's look at the numbers in these three states.

From the most likely, to the least likely: 

North Carolina went for Obama in 2008 and was very close this year. There is a large and growing Latino population and the urban areas are growing. NC will continue as a swing state in future years, without a doubt.

Arizona was a reach to extend the map this year by the Obama campaign. It didn't happen, but just a 4-5 point swing will clearly put Arizona in play. We would have a much better chance in 2016 if we had a wonderful Latino leader like Carmona in the Senate for the next four years to rally and solidify the Latino vote, but I still believe that Arizona will be in play in 2016.

Texas seems like an impossibility at this distance, but consider the actual results in TX. It does not take much imagination to consider that an 8 point shift could occur in this rapidly growing state having several of the fastest-growing urban area in the country, and one of the fastest-growing Latino populations. The effects of the last redistricting linger, currently giving the GOP an unfair advantage, but I would not be surprised if TX voters demand a non-partisan process like AZ's that would rebalance the state by 2020. Texas might not come through for Dems until Hillary's re-election campaign, but it may be in the Dem column soon.

This map starts to look like a headlock on the Presidency, the Senate, and possibly the House by the Democratic Party. The new political reality is that the GOP will die on the vine if they don't pull their heads out of their asses and stop treating minority citizens like they are second class. 

Jeff Flake's Campaign Misdirecting Democratic Voters to Incorrect Polling Place with Robocalls

By Michael Bryan

Honest, if incompetent, mistake? Or attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? We report, you decide.

Jeff Flake's campaign is robocalling to get out the vote. For some Democrats in the Valley, that call has contained blatantly incorrect information as to the location of that voter's polling place.

See the video below the fold...

Presidential Predictions!

By Michael Bryan

I always enjoy going out a limb and proving myself a terrible electoral prognosticator. In that spirit, here are my predictions for Tuesdays Presidential Election.

Electoral maps generated by RealClearPolitics dandy Create Your Own Map tool. Play with it at peril of your afternoon disappearing in a clatter of obsessive clicking. You've been warned...

Squeaker Obama Scenario (15% likelihood):

In this scenario, nearly every swing state in which the polling is arguably close other than Ohio goes for Romney: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa all defy polling predictions. Obama still wins so long as he holds in Ohio. That's how very difficult it is for Romney to win the Presidency at this point.

Slightly More Comfortable Obama Scenario (15% likelihood):

If Obama wins in swing states he's held consistent leads in, such as New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa he walks away with the race by 8pm Eastern Time when polls close in the Midwest. 

Blowout Obama (likelihood 69.9%):

I consider this to be the most likely final map for this election. Obama wins all the close swing states and blows Romney away decisively. I can forsee the possibility that Romney will take Florida through voter access manipulation and the sort of electoral corruption in close races that the GOP excels in, which takes Obama down to Nate Silver's predicted outcome of Obama at just over 300 electoral votes. I'm a little more optimistic than Nate. If it were legal to bet on election outcomes, my money would be on Obama with a 300 electoral vote floor. The race can be called as soon as the polls close on the East Coast.

The Nightmare for America's Furture Scenario (likelihood 0.1%):

The world is an unpredictable place and even solid predictions may go awry. Suppose that Romney wins Ohio and sweeps nearly all the other swing states, including Florida and Virginia. Then he might be able to sweak out a victory in the electoral college. In which case, the Mayans were right: the world effectively ends in 2012 - at least for America.

Our New Anti-Carmona Ad

By Michael Bryan

Many of you will notice that we have a wonderful new ad that suggests Richard Carmona and Barack Obama have a secret deal with labor to make everyone pay union dues. Most of our readers will be happy to hear it, if only it were so.

I accepted the ad for one reason: it paid me personally, as the owner of the blog, $92.46, after commissions to display it for the next two weeks until the election. Usually, I use such revenues to pay for blog hosting, or to take my bloggers out for a breakfast on me, or other such blog-related expenses.

This time, I'm donating the money to the Carmona campaign. You should contribute, too. I'm asking 50 BlogForArizona readers to donate any amount to Push for Victory, an Act Blue campaign for the closest Congressional campaigns in Arizona. Please join me.

So, to the advertisers who wanted you to know about Dr. Carmona's nefarious secret deal, I'm sure that Dr, Carmona thanks you for the contribution :)

 

Dr. Richard Carmona is the Best Democratic Political Return on Investment in Any Senate Race in the Nation

By Michael Bryan

Here in Arizona we have a uniquely productive opportunity to invest in our own future. According to the uncannily accurate pollster, Nate Silver, the race for the open Senate seat here in Arizona represents the very best political ROI for Democrats in taking a Senate seat, and therefore in keeping control of the U.S. Senate.

Your donations to the Carmona campaign are the most strategically powerful political investment in the nation today. Every dollar donated in this race is effectively multiplied because every dollar is relatively much more likely to affect the balance of power in D.C.

Nowhere else in the nation can you get the equivalent bang for every single buck. Dr. Carmona is up against a well-funded opponent in an incredibly tight race that, until recently, no one thought a Democrat could win. If you are reading this, it means that you are an engaged and active Democratic voter and opinion leader in Arizona. You have the opportunity to do more to move the needle more with every dollar than nearly anyone else in the nation.

Use your influence, your social circle, your voice, and your donations to make a critical difference to the future of Arizona and our nation by donating to Dr. Carmona's campaign. You can use BlogForArizona's own Push For Victory Act Blue page to donate securely right now.

While you are at it, consider donating to two candidates who are also in the closest House contests in Arizona -- Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema. You can donate to these candidates at the Push For Victory page, too. Every new Democratic House seat pickup brings us closer to the 25 we Democrats need to take back the House. It can be done, and you have the power to make a highly leveraged strategic investment in that new Democratic-controlled Congress.

I'm asking at least 50 BlogForArizona readers to step up and push! You should be one. Let's roll!

Vernon Parker, The Issue Kyrsten Sinema Raised is That You Support Ryan's Entitlement Reforms, Not His Entire Budget

I hope Parker doesn't look too dark in this picture, so I am not accused of racism by the GOP...

By Michael Bryan

I recently took a close look at the CD9 Congressional Debate between Vernon Parker and Kyrsten Sinema (and some obnoxious Libertarian perennial candidate), and one exchange really stood out for me: Kyrsten accused Parker of supporting the entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget plan (time mark 16:40). Then Parker denied supporting the Ryan budget plan (time mark 16:57). That's not what Kyrsten accused you of, Vernon.

Sinema specifically noted that Parker has expressed support for entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget, not the whole thing. Parker is on record saying he does not endorse the whole Ryan budget (though I think that is likely a political imposture adopted in deference to the competitive nature of the District he's running in, and not any specific disagreements - he was unable to name a single real disagreement with the Ryan budget when asked for one).

Notably, Parker did not answer Sinema's allegation by denying that he supports Ryan's entitlement reforms, he denies he supports the whole budget. Not the same thing, Vernon! Answer the charge: do you support the Ryan voucher plan for Medicare (so-called "premium support plan")? He won't deny that he supports that portion of the Ryan plan.

Parker was asked specifically about the Ryan budget in a Politics Unplugged interview on Sept. 2nd (video link). Parker said that the we have to look at entitlement benefits for future generations because the current system is "not working" and that he does support that aspect of the Ryan plan. In addition, when pressed about what about the Ryan plan he DOES NOT support (time mark 4:20), Parker claims that he wants to protect seniors' Social Security benefits (retiree and near-term beneficiaries are held harmless in Ryan's current plan, to prevent a retiree revolt, so there is no distinction here...). As to Medicare, well, Parker doesn't really say what he might disagree with in the Ryan plan, only that Obamacare cuts Medicare, which is just a repetition of the lie that won't die. So, It is hard to see any daylight between Ryan and Parker on entitlement reform, because Parker just won't talk about it. Conclusion: there isn't any.

Now consider Parker's candidate questionnaire, in which he talks about entitlement reform:

“For years, the government has been deceiving the American people. The truth is we can’t afford the government we now enjoy. Medicare and Social Security are large drivers of that imbalance. I have three tenants for reform. First, seniors and those nearing retirement must be assured that their benefits will stay the same. We must honor our contract with them. Second, middle age workers must be willing to accept reforms to the current programs to extend the life of these programs. Third, those entering the workforce like my son’s generation need to understand that reforming these systems sooner rather than later increases the chances of meaningful reform in the future. The truth is Congress is too afraid to make the difficult choices, and every day we wait, the solution gets more expensive.”

That certainly is consistent with Ryan's voucher plan, and even with some of Ryan's more ambitious goals for privatizing Social Security. Needless to say, it is also consistent with the $700 billion in Medicare savings present in both Obamacare (which does not cut benefits, and plows the money back into expanded Medicare benefits) and the Ryan plan (which plows those same savings into the wallets of the wealthiest through top-rate tax cuts).

Vernon Parker has an allergy to taking any clear position on the central issues of this campaign. And there is good reason for that: if his views were honestly expressed, he would never be elected in CD9.

Stand up and make a Final Push for Victory today as a BlogForArizona contributor to the closest Congressional races in Arizona: Simena's among them. Let's elect Democrats to Congress who will put the kibosh on Ryan's dangerous and radical plans for entitlement 'reform'.

Dr. Carmona, That is Not How You Should Talk About the Laffer Curve

By Michael Bryan

I was generally quite satisfied with Dr. Carmona's very first political debate performance against Jeff Flake. He missed some opportunities, and he was certainly too eager to hug some of Flake's positions, but he acquitted himself decently.

One flub that stood out, however, was his answer to moderator Ted Simons' question regarding the Laffer Curve (supply side economic theory that lowering taxes encourages growth to the extent that tax revenues will actually increase at the lower rate). Simons asked, "The idea that lower taxes equals growth, means more revenue to the government: supply side, Laffer Curve, whatever you want to call it. That kind of economic theory. Valid?"

I can't embed the C-SPAN video clip of the question and Carmona's answer, but you can see it here.

Dr. Carmona said, "It is valid to a certain extent - the markets are much more complex than that, but I'm in agreement with Mark [Victor, the Libertarian candidate], and in fact I'm in agreement with the Congressman that we have to do everything we can to lower the tax rates."

No, Doctor. That is not how any Democrat, even an independent one, should EVER answer such a question. It's like telling a Birther that he has a valid point.

The Laffer Curve is complete malarkey (as Joe Biden would put it...). No credible economist takes it seriously, and there in absolutely no empirical support for the idea. Just the opposite in fact. Our economy grows more robustly when the tax code fosters a more equitable income distribution through progressive taxation - asking the wealthy to do proportionally more to fund government aids growth.

Now, I have been reassured by the Carmona campaign that Dr. Carmona certainly does NOT believe in the economic thoeries surrounding the Laffer Curve - he made a mis-statement in agreeing with the idea to any degree.

His campaign made an official announcement in response to my rather pissed-off late-night inquiry:

"Dr. Carmona wants comprehensive tax reform that would make our tax code simpler and fairer. Dr. Carmona believes raising taxes on the middle class would be hazardous in a still recovering economy, but he would eliminate loopholes for those at the very top. Dr. Carmona would lower corporate tax rates in order to ensure small businesses stop paying the highest rates in the world. But he would also do away with special breaks that allow some of our most profitable businesses to pay nothing in taxes."

A candidate can make mistakes; especially one who is in a bruisingly hard-fought, high-profile race as close as this one, his very first time running for public office. I'll give the good Doctor some slack - and even sent him a contribution for running such an excellent and responsive campaign.

And you should, too. You can be a BlogForArizona contributor to the Push For Victory by contributing to the toss-up Congressional races in Arizona, including Dr. Carmona's. Far better a candidate who made a mistake but shares our values, than one who truly and deeply believes in malarkey like the Laffer Curve - which Jeff Flake certainly does.

But I'll also give Doctor Carmona some advice. Next time, answer such a question in a way that frames the debate, denies the malarkey of the GOP, and supports the President's message. For example:

"No credible economist agrees with Republican's voodoo economic idea that lowering tax rates ultimately always pays for itself by increasing revenues: and I listen to those know know the facts. Certainly, the deficits of the last three decades show that such ideas are ludicrous. There are virtues in keeping taxes low and even reducing rates on middle class folks, however. It puts more money in their pockets that folks will immediately spend to spur demand in our economy in this diffcult time. We don't want to slow the economy down just as it's getting moving again by raising taxes on those average Americans who drive consumer spending, which is over 70% of our economy. But there is no evidence that asking the wealthiest to pay a bit more will hurt economic growth, or hold back job creation. Just the opposite: history teaches us that our economy grows most robustly when the wealthy are asked to shoulder their fair share of funding government. I side with the evidence, the lessons of history, and our struggling Middle Class when it comes to tax policy."

Now that's an answer to Simons' question that provides real contrast between the candidates for the voters.

 

Obamney III: The Foreign Policy Debate at Drinking Liberally Monday 10/22 at 6pm

By Michael Bryan

This Monday, Oct. 22nd starting at 6pm (we'll start gathering about 5:30 to give everyone time to find parking, chat, grab a beer, settle in, etc. - the debate starts at 6pm sharp), Drinking Liberally will have another special session for a viewing party for the third Presidential Debate. The party is at the Shanty on 4th Avenue and 9th Street, as always.

We will have big screens for your enjoyment inside the bar, and outside on the Shanty's beautiful patio. So come on down, hoist a beer, and listen to President Obama (and that other guy) talk about foreign policy more in-depth than we have heard so far in this campaign.

Please remember than whether you are guiding the foreign policy of the world's sole superpower, or just having a beer while watching a debate about it, always drink responsibly.

Drinking Liberally will be bringing you TWO great debates this week! The Presidential Debate on Monday, AND a live action smack-down between the local champions of the Democratic and Republican Parties: Dave Bradley and Frank Antenori, opposing candidates for the Arizona State Senate. Dave and Frank will be debating live on the regular Drinking Liberally day of Wednesday, October 24th. We will gather starting at 7pm, and the debate will begin at 7:30pm.

Dave and Frank will be engaging in a real, old-school debate, moderated very lightly by yours truly, NOT a boring candidate forum. Prepare for a very spirited and informative good time! I trust that Frank will be inviting lots of his supporters, so you may find an opportunity for some debates of your own with the conservative you may find yourself sitting next to! I always enjoy it immensely when our conservative countrymen join us at Drinking Liberally, I hope you will, too.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Jeff Flake Appears to Agree with Cutting the Federal Government by 50%, And Weird Things About the Great Recession

By Michael Bryan

I had a close listen to the Carmona / Flake (and Victor) debate on KAET recently. It wasn't terribly interesting or enlightening, I'm afraid. Carmona did OK for a political debate neophyte, with just one major slip that I'll discuss in a later post.

I can't embed a clip of the C-SPAN feed, unfortunately, but I created a custom clip on their website that you can access here. The clip highlights Flake's ridiculous answer to moderator Ted Simons' question about lessons learned from the Great Recession.

But before even getting to that, it is interesting to listen closely to the end of Libertarian candidate Mark Victor's statement at the very beginning of the clip.

Victor said, "... we need to cut government by 50% just to get started." Immediately after, a voice says "That's right." It was rather faint, and not entirely clear who said it in the video. It's clear it wasn't Victor, and it certainly wasn't Carmona or Simons, so I assumed it was Flake, but I wasn't entirely sure.

So I wrote to the moderator, Ted Simons, who kindly responded to my inquiry as follows:

"Regarding your question regarding a 50% cut in govt comment during AZ Horizon's debate: I can't be sure about this but it appears it was Rep. Flake who said, "that's right," considering both Mr. Victor and I turned to him. But again, I'm not at all positive about that. And my impression is that the remark was in response to more of what Mr. Victor was saying about cutting govt and not just the 50% remark. Not much help, I know, but it's the best I can do for you..."

So the moderator at the table also thinks it was likely Flake who seconded Victor's rather radical notion that we need to cut government by 50% to start. Though, charitably, Simons interprets Flake's shout-out as more generalized agreement with Victor, not specifically the 50% cut. I don't need to be so charitable; nor do you.

Obamney II: The Obama-Romney Foreign Policy Town Hall

By Michael Bryan

Round two of the 2012 Presidential Debates will be this Tuesday starting at 6pm local time. Drinking Liberally will again be watching at the Shanty in beautiful and torn-up downtown Tucson. Plan to arrive a little early to deal with parking, get a good seat, grab a drink, and settle in before the main event starts.

With three big screens (two of them gigantic) indoors and out, you can relax with friends and fellow liberals and take in this historic and vital event with a beer in hand and pepper popcorn in reach. 

The Shanty doesn't serve food (except popcorn), so you are welcome (and encouraged) to bring your favorite munchies, if you like.

NEW POSTS WILL APPEAR BELOW...

Arizona's Newest Supreme Court Justice, Ann Scott Timmer, and Prop 115

By Michael Bryan   

Governor Brewer just made her selection to replace Justice Hurwitz on the State Supreme Court: Arizona Appeals Court Judge Ann Scott Timmer.

Judge Timmer will make a fine Supreme Court Justice and is highly qualified for the Supreme Court. The reason she was picked is that she was one of three highly qualified candidates selected by the current merit selection system.... which the Republicans want voters to abolish with Prop 115.

Instead of a professional commission making recomendations of highly qualified applicants, judicial selection would become a highly political back-room deals, with judges serving limited terms at the pleasure of the powers that be - a recipe for a more politicized judiciary beholden to special interests instead of justice and professionalism.

One wonders how Judge Timmer would have fared under the system the GOP wants us to adopt? 

Just four years ago, a conservative, self-appointed watch-dog website, Arizona Judges Review, rated the Appeals Court on which Judge Timmer sat. Their evaluation of Judge Timmer (a Republican) was that she was "very liberal", apparently because of her exemplary legal advice and accumen (for which she was given an official commendation by the Speaker of the Arizona House, also a Republican) as legal counsel for the Mecham impeachment, and her professional asssociations with "left-leaning" legal groups like the Women Lawyers Association and Community Legal Services. As far as I can tell, they did no survey of collegues, attorneys, or litigants, or any analysis of her record on the bench to arrive at this spurious conclusion.

Given the shallow, meaningless, and guilt-by-association standards by which political hacks evaluate judicial fitness, it seems to me quite insane for voters to allow such political biases to be the basis on which we select our judges.

Vote "NO" on Prop 115. Keep the system which advances highly qualified judges like Judge Timmer to our bench, and keep political hacks out of judicial selection.

David Bradley Has Some Unexpected New Friends

By Michael Bryan

Boy, a campaign's financial reports can be really interesting. Take for instance David Bradley's pre-primary report. David is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the State Senate seat in LD 10. David has some new supporters who might be surprising to some.

Many of you will know John Charles "Chuck" Coughlin, President of Highground Consulting and a lobbyist widely known as Governor Brewer's Brain, or the Shadow-Governor. This is a man so deeply plugged into the GOP establishment in Arizona that if you were to disconnect him, the whole machine would grind to a halt.

One guess who is showing up as a donor to David Bradley's campaign against Frank Antenori, in one of the few truly competative districts in the state.

 

 

One guess who does NOT show up in Frank Antenori's report.

Many also know of Douglas Cole, Vice President of Highground Consulting and another GOP powerbroker lobbyist.

One more guess who donated to David Bradley, and not to Frank Antenori.

 

 

Finally, many of you will know Don Diamond, local mega-developer and deep pocket for conservative pols.

Yet one more guess as to who gave a maxed-out contribution to David Bradley, and NOT to Frank Antenori.

 

 

Now, one thing is for certain, these GOP heavyweights are not contributing to David's campaign because they agree with his policy preferences. David is about as blue and bleeding-hearted as they come.

So, this is... curious. I wonder if some of the top GOP movers and shakers in the state are just not that into Frank Antenori any more? Perhaps they've decided that he's just more trouble than he's worth?

Matt Heinz Sharpening Message on Ron Barber

By Michael Bryan

It appears Heinz is sharpening his messaging as early voting is underway. Heinz just released the following mailer, which hit my box yesterday:

In it, Heinz hits Barber with the line "Ron Barber – Ready to Follow" and a picture that suggests Barber is swearing an oath to Speaker Boehner, citing two key votes by Barber in support of the civil contempt bill against AG Holder, and the suspension of environmental laws in the border zone, which Heinz has been consistently stumping on.

Nothing new here, but dropping it in mailers may push the message home with more amplitude. But the rhetorical flourish of suggesting Barber is follower (of Speaker Boehner, no less), not leader, is pretty sharp.

Even sharper is an ad posted by the Heinz camp today. The ad leads with headlines about Arizona's image problems and the voice over that "Southern Arizona has become a dumping ground for extremist Tea Party legislation" with a pic of a landfill, which cuts to a pic of Barber over that dump with the voice continuing "Ron Barber added to that pile when he voted for a Tea Party backed bill exempting the border patrol from over a century of environmental laws." Again, no new material here, but a fairly sharp elbow to throw in attempting to associate Barber with the Tea Party in a Democratic primary.

See the ad after the fold...

So, it appears that Heinz main contrast message will be based on those unpopular votes and how they demonstrate that Barber is getting rolled because of his inexperience as a legislator, and perhaps a bit too accommodating of Tea Pary wingnuttery. I'm not convinced that these two votes, no matter how obnoxious they might have been to many Dems (myself included) will be enough for Heinz to make major in-roads on Barber's support.

Primary voters in a competitive district are inherently conservative, in the sense that they want to back a horse they think can win, and will be fairly strategic and stubborn about that choice. Barber demonstrated convincingly that he could hold the seat for Dems against a determined (if flawed) challenger. It will take a lot more than a few poorly considered votes to drive a wedge between primary Dem voters and Barber, who now looks to most like a safe bet to hold the seat.

Perhaps Heinz can find a way to overcome Barber's advantages, but I'm guessing that Heinz probably missed his chance when he stepped aside for Barber in the Special, along with all the other candidates. The rest of those pols understood that if Barber decided to go for a full term, it would be nearly impossible to successfully primary him. Perhaps Heinz would be a better candidate and Member than Barber, but I doubt that Heinz will be able to sucessfully make that case. Heinz has to be too careful of alienating Dems with strong attacks on Barber to overcome the quasi-incumbency and front-runner momentum that millions of dollars worth of Special election advertising has given Barber.

Joe the Plumber Talked About More Than Shootin' Him Some Wetbacks at the Lori Klein Rally

by Michael Bryan

You might have already heard about Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurtzelbacher's assinine comment at two different events here in Arizona about putting troops on the border and shooting illegal immigrants. He and Lori Klein have chosen to claim that he was just joking. Watch the video of the event yourself (starting at about 2:10 into the video) and see what you think. That he made is comments in a perfectly serious tone, prefaced by the statement that politicians should "say what they mean," and followed by the assertion that it would "solve our immigration problem real quick," makes it seem not so jokey. But that's not even half the stupid shit he said.

In the video of one of the events (start at 4:45 for this gem...), you will see Joe/Sam practically say that Jews are behind a plot to weaken America through the media by enforcing 'political correctness'. What he actually says is that prior to WWII "this think tank" of emigres came from Germany to Washington D.C. and Hollywood to spread communism. Now who does that sound like, to you? Joe/Sam just clumsily dog-whistled anti-semitism right here in our backyard.

Next Joe/Sam says the "Federal government can go stick it" (he's only running to be a member of that government, after all...) and claims that "the Federal government cannot, and it's obvious, run the country." What, huh? So why do you want to join that team, Joe/Sam?

The man is a racist, a dangerous reactionary, an anti-semite, and an incoherent fool. He's the perfect GOP candidate!

Watch the idiocy yourself after the click...

Jeff Flake Really Doesn't Want You to Vote For Him!

By Michael Bryan

Confronted with his professed preference that U.S. Senators be selected by state legislators rather than elected by the voters, and the resulting coverage (here, here, here, here, here, right here), Jeff Flake issued a clarification:

“I should just mention, on the 17th Amendment, I think it’s better as it reinforces the notion of federalism to have senators appointed by state legislatures. Having said that, I’m under no illusion that you’ll ever go back because you have 100 senators who have been elected who would worry that they wouldn’t be appointed, and so I think we’ve probably crossed that Rubicon.”

Interesting choice of language by Flake: 'crossing the Rubicon'. The expression comes from Julius Caear's choice to cross over the Rubicon river with his army, and march on Rome, effectively ending the republican era of the Roman Empire. The phrase can generically mean passing a point of no return, and that may be all Flake meant by use of the phrase.

But the term tends to carry a particular inflection when used in a political context: a change in political culture toward tyranny. For instance, a recent short-lived television series about a secret plot to overthrow the American government by key figures in the 'military-industrial complex' was titled 'Rubicon' for this reason.

So one has to wonder: does Jeff Flake harbor a belief that the direct election of Senators was a step away from freedom, and toward tyranny? Did his belief that direct election of Senators undermined the principle of federalism color his choice of idiom? Does he believe that the reduction of the primacy of state legislatures in our national politics reduced Americans' freedom or has taken America toward tyranny? If that is Flake's belief, that would be an interesting and important thing to know: he would be running for an office he believes tyranically undermines Americans' freedom.

Another interesting wrinkle was shrewdly pointed out in a comment here on this blog by RCubed's Ted Prezelski:

"I find it odd that no one so far, either on this blog or anywhere else, has brought up the fact that the direct election of U.S. Senators is provided for in Arizona's Constitution...

"Article 7, Section 9: 9. Advisory vote
For the purpose of obtaining an advisory vote of the people, the legislature shall provide for placing the names of candidates for United States senator on the official ballot at the general election next preceding the election of a United States senator."

The next section places this "advisory vote" clearly in the realm of the system of partisan elections:

"Section 10. The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective State, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress. Any person who is registered as no party preference or independent as the party preference or who is registered with a political party that is not qualified for representation on the ballot may vote in the primary election of any one of the political parties that is qualified for the ballot."

This is easily forgotten because the "advisory vote" was only invoked once, in 1912 when Henry Fountain Ashurst and Marcus A. Smith were elected after a highly contested primary and general election with the admission of Arizona as a state. The legislature, as expected and intended, simply ratified the results of the advisory election unanimously and without debate. By the time of the next regularly scheduled election, the 17th Amendment was in place.

This is all a long way of saying that what Flake is calling for is not only unprecedented in this state, but also not in keeping with the intent of the framers of Arizona's Constitution."

Count on Ted to know his Arizona history well enough to point out this one-off event prior to the ratification of the federal amendment. Ted correctly points out that in order for Arizona's legislature to choose it's Senators once again, we would also have to contravene the original intent of Arizona Constitution.

Thus, Flake seems to be advocating against not only a century-old amendment of the U.S. Federal Constitution, but also against a century-old original provision of the Arizona Constitution. Talk about nostalgia! Flake seems to think that the Arizona Constitution was a mistake.

Flake's new motto could be "Vote Flake: Because Arizona's Been Wrong for a Century."

 

Jeff Flake Doesn't Want You to Vote For Him!

By Michael Bryan

Jeff Flake told a crowd in Payson at a meet-and-greet that he thinks the Unted States should go back to the election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures. We changed our Constitution via the 17th Amendment in 1912 to allow the popular election of the Senate. Flake thinks that was mistake. He thinks it better for state legislatures to elect half of our Congress behind closed doors rather than in public campaigns.

So, apparently, Jeff Flake doesn't want you to vote for him (or even be able to...). I advise you oblige him.

Saturday... Well... Weekend? Editorial August 11th, 2012

By Michael Bryan

I'd like to let you all know that Drinking Liberally will be meeting this week at the regular time and place (Wednesday, 6pm at The Shanty). This week our guest is... Me! I will be presenting the Propositions that will appear on this November's ballot (and a few that might not be...). We'll discuss the pros and cons (where such exists) and a have a few beers. For a preview, or if you can't make it, you can take a look at my 2012 Ballot Prop Guide.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well. I do it to bring you readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). Sometimes the avalanche of information available in our 24/7 news cycle can be overwhelming. I do generally succeed in keeping the Feed topically restricted to Arizona politics. But it is a lot of noise to sort through, so, I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and try to get some perspective on the news.

This week, I chose to present an extended rumination on the Jared Loughner plea and the Arpaio trial. I sense some connections that might not be entirely obvious.

Read more after the click...

Romney Campaign Stumps for Obamacare

By Michael Bryan

OK. So the Obama campaign runs an ad that crushes Romney on a Bain plant closure that caused a fellow to lose his healthcare, which cost his wife her life. Brutal, right?

So. Romney's campaign counters with a spokesperson, Andrea Saul, on Fox. She says this:

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama’s economy.”

Really? Your counter is that if only that poor bastard has been lucky enough to have lived in Massachusetts in order to benefit from Romneycare, his wife would have been fine. Except that Romney wants to repeal Obama's version of national Romneycare if he's elected.

It boogles the mind. It's as if these people live in a video game of a campaign which has no connection to real people or real consequences. Scoring the next point is the only goal. "Well, Romneycare would have saved that guy's wife, so there!" Cue pleased look on face of Romneybot as she mentally tots up another point for her team...

See the video of Romneybot Ms. Saul basically admitting that Obamacare saves lives after the click...

Andy Thomas' Judicial Tyranny Conspiracy Theories

By Michael Bryan

Disgraced and disbarred, almost-Arizona-Attorney-General Andy Thomas published a conspiracy-theory laced diatribe on 'judicial tyranny'. It is an impressively reality-challenged piece of political propaganda. The defining feature of propaganda is hyperbolic and unsupported assertions lacking any sort of proof or factual basis: Andy's rant has this feature in spades.

Let's take a look at what Andy has to say, and point out it's many, many problems. Andy is in bold and I'm in italics...

[hat tip to Sonoran Alliance for publishing this oozing sore on the face of our public life...]

Read the oozing sore, and my attempt to apply antibiotic, after the click...

Abortion is a Real Difference Between Flake and Cardon, and Cardon's Position is now the GOP Mainstream

By Michael Bryan

I've been hugely entertained by the GOP primary between Flake and Cardon, but really I haven't seen much difference between them. Differences do exist, of course, and many Republicans can tell you all about them. Democrats generally won't be able to see a lick of difference.

But there is one subject on which there is a key difference between these two Republicans: abortion.

Mr. Flake and Mr. Cardon are clearly both opposed to abortion. But in today's GOP, Mr. Flake is 'soft' on abortion, and Mr. Cardon is a 'real' Republican.

The GOP has been moving sharply rightward on abortion lately. Opposing abortions even in the circumstance of rape or incest is now a very mainstream GOP position. Increasingly, the GOP orthodoxy is to force a victim of rape or incest to bear the child of the man who violated her.

This issue is basis of the clearest difference between these two rock-ribbed paleo-conservatives. Mr. Flake does not favor forcing the victims of rape or incest to bear the child, Mr. Cardon does.

Who says the Center For Arizona Policy isn't good for anything? I would not have realized just how many GOP candidates for Federal office this year side with Mr. Cardon in forcing victims of rape and incest to carry the progeny of thier attackers to term without their candidate questionaire.

GOP politicians who favor forcing women to bear the children of rape and incent include: Jon Paton in CD1, Martha McSally in CD2, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer and Jaime Vasquez in CD3, Paul Gosar (who even seems to oppose abortion even to save the life of the mother) and Ron Gould in CD4, Kirk Adams and Matt Salmon in CD5, David Schweikert in CD6 (I guess Benny is soft on abortion),  Trent Franks in CD8, and Leah Campos Schandlbauer, Travis Grantham, Vernon Parker, Wendy J. Rogers, and Martin Sepulveda in CD9.

In fact, in most Congressional districts, Republicans don't have a choice about choice: they only have candidates who support forcing women to carry rape and incest pregnancies to term.

Indeed, most GOP candidates for State Legislature also support forcing victims of rape and incest to term as well, even in presumably competitive districts. I encourage any Republican who doesn't support such an extreme position to take a close look at the questionaire of your local candidates. You might be surprised.

Tucson Shooting Survivors Demand a Plan to Control Gun Violence

By Michael Bryan

Survivors of Jared Laughner's horrific rampage in Tucson are calling on Obama and Romney to formulate a plan to reduce gun violence. They have released an ad and launched a website, DemandAPlan.org.

The site includes a tally of time passed since the last horrific rampage in Aurora and the number of Americans killed by gun violence. Perhaps the count will have to be reset today as we learn of a new gun rampage in an Oak Creek, Michigan Sihk temple, claiming the lives of seven.

The group is wisely not demanding adherence to or adoption of a specific plan, instead demanding that each candidate put forward ANY plan. You can sign the petition and more at the website.

See the ad after the click...

Saturday Editorial August 4th, 2012

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts. You can even look back to all the editorials I have done so far, which isn't that many, yet...

I would also like to let you all know that Cam Juarez, candidate for Tucson Unified School Board, will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and enjoy a beer with Cam.

This week, I write about:

An excellent peice of must-see political television presided over by Jim Nintzel,

The Chik-Fil-A culture war comes home to Arizona,

Brewer's decision on Medicaid expansion will be a matter of life and death for Arizonans, and

The Best New Thing in Arizona Politics has something to do with Ben Quayle... 

See it all after the click...

Saturday Editorial July 28th, 2012

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts. You can even look back to all the editorials I have done so far, which isn't that many, yet...

I would also like to let you all know that Betts Putnam-Hidalgo, candidate for Tucson Unified School Board, will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and enjoy a beer with Betts.

This week, I don't have a big post for you all. I just finished my 2012 Ballot Prop Voter Guide, and that's about all I want to say today. I will just leave you all with the Best New Thing in Arizona Politics this week: Russell Pearce in the Bunker! See it after the click...

Ballot Propositions and Referenda for 2012 Voter Guide

By Michael Bryan

Here at BlogForArizona we generally don't do endorsements. We believe in presenting readers with good information and letting them make up their own minds. In addition, doing so can be problematic because of the diversity of views of our bloggers. Finally, there is something ineffably subjective and human about choosing another person to represent you that mere analysis of positions or policies or biographies cannot really capture.

But when it comes to ballot questions, we're on firmer ground. The language of the ballot question is what it is. Sometimes a good deal of legal or institutional knowledge is required to understand the likely effect of the new law, which not every voter has. So, to help voters fully participate in this aspect of Arizona's Progressive heritage, BlogForArizona presents a recommended list of positions on the ballot questions this year.

There is a diversity of opinion on a few of the citizen inititiative Props here on the blog. Some members feel that the permanent sales tax must be passed, and our BlueMeanie feels the top two primary would be a disaster. Both Democrats and Republicans feel that Open Primaries will be problematic, which is a point in favor of the reform, in my view. In fairness, I should note that my recomendations for these two citizen initiatives go against the majority opinion in the Democratic establishment. So be it. There will be links to alternative views on these Props as they become available.

Update 10/21/12: I've been convinced by colleagues, friends, and analysts that the unintended consequences of Prop 121 would outweight any benefits. I have changed by recommendation to NO.

Though not a perfect guide, if the State Legislature has referred the question to the ballot, you should vote NO, unless very strong evidence convinces you otherwise. If it is a citizen petition, give it due consideration before voting NO. You can see the approved ballot language for all the measures here.

Prop 114: Crime Victim Protection From Liability	NO
Prop 115: Judicial Selection	NO
Prop 116: Personal Business Property Tax Exemption Amount	NO
Prop 117: Property Tax Assesed Value Limit	NO
Prop 118: Pemanent State Land Endowment Fund, Distribution	NO
Prop 119: State Land Trust Exchanges	YES
Prop 120: State Sovereignty	NO
Prop 204: Sales Tax Extension	NO
Prop 121: Top Two Primaries	NO
Prop [Not Yet Numbered]: Right to Reject Federal Laws	NO

Read on for full explanations of recommended votes...

Matt Heinz at Drinking Liberally Tucson 7/25

Dear Liberals,

Come join us this Wednesday night starting at 6pm at the Shanty on 4th Avenue.

This week our guest host is Matt Heinz. Matt is challenging Congressman Ron Barber for the Democratic Party nomination for the new CD2 seat.

Come learn about Matt and his campaign, and share a beer with him and your liberal friends.

Cheers,

Mike Bryan

Sugar Ray Goes Off on Rosemont!

By Michael Bryan

I respect any politician, or either party, who speaks truth to power, especially when they are doing so to stand up for their community.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll is bound to get some flack for his recent comments at a Save the Scenic Santa Ritas meeting (hat tip to Sonoran Alliance). He was lamenting the fact that local newspapers are raking in cash for running Rosemont's propaganda ads, causing a financial conflict in covering fairly the issues involved in the controversial mine project. He said he wished that those news outlets would put stock in their community and "stop selling out to those pricks".

Hells to the yeah, Sugar Ray! This is one Republican who is not backing off what he believes because some Tea Party wackadoodles have gotten it in their heads that Ray's not conservative enough for them. Some think that Ray is insufficiently on board with the plan for some foreign corporation to bust in here, hose our views and our water supply, leave us with another toxic mess to clean up, and blow town with the profits.

Well, Ray's ::gasp:: representing the concerns and views of his constituents in the district on this matter. Rather than rolling over and showing belly to every multi-nat that rolls in, like every other Tea Party dupe is begging to do these days, Ray's actually fighting for the people he represents. I didn't even know that Republicans were still allowed to do that.

See Ray proving me wrong after the click...

Even in Apologizing, Russell Pearce Demonstrates Unfitness For Office

By Michael Bryan

Today Russell Pearce finally threw in the towel and just apologized for his wooden-headed statements on Facebook following the Aurora massacre.

But even as he apologized for having caused offense, he doubled down:

"I will never understand policies that disarm honest citizens and leave them vulnerable to the premeditated attacks of madmen..."

The fact that Pearce 'will never understand' policies that disagrees with is the best evidence of his unfitness for public office. A public official needs to be able to understand the merits and weaknesses of his own and opposing policies. A person who has no capacity or interest in understanding those who disagree with him has no business being an elected representative in a democratic society.

Pearce's inability is likely not an intellectual incapacity, it is a willful rejection of any attempt to understand an opposing view. Note he says he 'will' never understand, not that he 'can' never understand. It's not that he can't: he won't. Pearce is unwilling to see opposing views as legitimate, and that's why he should never hold public office again.

Mr. Romney, Your Apology From The Obama Campaign, Sir...

By Michael Bryan

Well, that happened... Campaign Obama's Stephanie Cutter issued an apology today to Mr. Romney for saying that he was either a liar or a felon for his SEC filings with Bain from 1999 to 2002. It was heart-felt and moving. It should more than satisfy Mr. Romney's wounded sensibilities.

See the historic apology after the click...

Pearce Sets a New Bar for Offensiveness Among Arizona Politicians

By Michael Bryan

Pearce and his friend the mass murderer

Russell Pearce is a terrible human being. He should be condemned, and then shunned and ignored in our political life. If only he would shut the hell up, I would pleased to never have to mention him again.

In response to the horrific slaughter of innocents in Aurora, CO, Pearce shared the following insipid statement on his Facebook page:

"Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because noone was prepared to stop it."

In Pearce's worldview, the problem Aurora highlights is not that a mad man had access to assault weapons and used them on his fellow citizens, but that those citizens weren't sufficiently armed and ready to meet the threat.

Yes, the killer was a bad man, but he had far more than just 'a weapon'. He had a fucking armoury. He had four guns with hundreds of rounds of ready ammunition. He had body armour from head to toe. His home was full of IEDs that required the evacuation of surrounding apartment buildings and are still being disarmed.

Consider how that night might have been different if that bad, mad man had not been able to arm and armour himself to the degree that he posed a lethal threat to the lives and safety of his fellow citizens - including the police. If he had not been able to legally aquire the assault weapons that allowed this unstable monster to mow down dozens of his fellow human beings in moments? If he had not been able to armour himself to a degree that he was effectively immune to any civilian weapon?

If this bad man had not been able to transform himself into a walking terminator, then perhaps Pearce would have a point, albeit an insensitive and boorish one. But to place the burden of self-protection on every citizen, when any mad man has the means and legal right to purchase equipment more suited to a war zone than a suburban movie theater, is to stack the deck against peaceful citizens and ensure that more innocents will be gunned down by ferociously armed-to-the-teeth mad murderers.

For Pearce to claim that this tragedy was not a result of the uniquely loose nature of America's gun laws, but to lack of weapons among those in the theater is absurd, stupid, and insulting - much like the man himself.

I do believe that responsible citizens should have the right to own and carry guns for hunting, sport, and self defense. But no American outside the armed forces or police has any need - nor should one have the legal right - to arm himself with the sort of equipment that makes one such a dire threat to public safety. 

Assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition systems have no place in the armoury of any citizen merely interested in defense of themselves and others, sport, or hunting. No private person going about their daily lives has a need for the sort of combat weapons to which this monster had legal access.

Allowing the sale of such equipment is an unacceptable threat to public safety, because the only possible use of such weaponry is the sort of mass slaughter we've far too frequently in our nation.

Or political terrorism. Or armed insurrection.

Given the proclivities and history of the reactionary right in this country, maybe that explains the real motive of the right-wing paranoids who would block any legislation that would protect our citizens from such weapons of slaughter.

Saturday Editorial, July 21, 2012

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts.

I would also like to let you all know that Matt Heinz, candidate for Congressm in AZ's CD 2, will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and enjoy a beer with Matt.

So, here are some thoughts on what I think are the most important, or just most interesting, developments in the past week in Arizona's politics...