Blog For Arizona

AZ GOP First Vice Chair advises Religious Right to vote for Al Melvin!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The dysfunctional Arizona GOP is once again allowing the disgraced and recalled former Senate President and current First Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party, Russell Pearce, to behave as if he is still "King Russell" (only in his own mind).

Today Russell Pearce chooses sides in the GOP primary for governor by advising the Christian Right, "If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family" -- and vote for Cap'n Al Melvin! From the Arizona Republic, Stand up, Christians:

If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family.

* * *

I was very disappointed to see some of our Republican candidates for governor lose their nerve when it came to Senate Bill 1062, which amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And now some state senators who voted for it want to hide and retract their vote for religious freedom.

Unbelievable.

More rats abandon the sinking SB1062 ship

Crossposted on both Democratic Diva and the new BfA site

Man, I called this on Facebook yesterday. After it was reported that Sen. Steve Pierce (R) wanted the Governor to veto SB1062, the religious bigot bill he voted for, I predicted that Sen. Adam Driggs (also R) would follow suit. Unsurprisingly, he was joined by Sen. Bob Worsley (also R).

2014 Election Calendar

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

2014 Election Calendar

Primary Election

April 28, 2014    Candidate Petitions – first day to file

May  28, 2014    Candidate Petitions – last day to file

Jul     7, 2014    Write-in Candidate (Primary) – last day to file

 

July 3, 2014    Constitutional Initiatives – last day to file

July 9, 2014    Arguments For/Against Ballot Measures – last day to file

 

July         28, 2014    Voter Registration (Primary) closes

July         31, 2014    Early Voting (Primary) begins

August   26, 2014    Election Day (Primary)

September 8, 2014    Official Canvass of Election Results

Al Melvin, Tea Party candidate for governor

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Cap'n Al Melvin at the Arizona GOP Awards Dinner the night before the Arizona GOP Winter State Committee Meeting last month, said that he would "proudly wave the flag of the Tea Party." (video below the fold).

This video is pure Cap'n Al, unplugged.

As I have said before, the Neo-Confederate dead-enders and John Birchers need to get their own damn political party and stop hijacking the hollowed-out carcass of the Republican Party for the legitimacy of the party label.

This is not your father's GOP. The "Party of Lincoln" long ago ceased to exist. This is a hostile takeover by a band of far-right radicals and extremists.

What's it going to be, Guv, yes or no?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I noticed that a recent AZFactCheck at the Arizona Republic, The issue: The gubernatorial candidates' position on Medicaid expansion, repeated something that Governor Jan Brewer's publicist, Howard Fischer, has managed to work into his reporting on the governor at every opportunity, to wit:

Brewer herself is still considered a potential gubernatorial candidate. She is expected to announce in February whether she'll challenge the state's term-limit laws. Arizona law permits statewide-elected officials to serve only two consecutive terms. Article 5, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution states, “No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term."

But Brewer and private attorney Joe Kanefield, a friend of Brewer's, have said there is "ambiguity" in that passage, saying the legal question centers on the definition of "term." Kanefield has said drafters were referring to a governor who was elected to a term and not a governor who inherited the office by succession. Brewer was not elected to the office in 2009, but ascended to the seat when then-Gov. Janet Napolitano resigned her seat to join President Barack Obama's Cabinet.

There are twelve days left in February. So what's it going to be, Guv, yes or no? Time to announce.

"Both parties suck! Wah! Why won't you Democrats fix it?!?"

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

Laurie Roberts at the AZ Republic is beside herself that the well-heeled proponents of the dumb Top Two Primary idea are, as she delightedly exclaims, baaaaaack. (Much more after the jump)

Q: When is it okay for AZ Dem lawmakers to sign an anti-Roe v Wade pledge?

A: Never.

Yet two Democrats in the AZ House did just that.

Text of the proclamation:

New Tea-Publican challenger To Martha McSally in CD 2

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After one Teabagger stumbles out of the gate, out of the race, another Tea-Publican "dark horse" has entered the starting gate.

The Tucson Weekly reports that, New GOP Dark Horse at the Starting Gate in CD2:

A new Republican candidate wants to see if he can outmaneuver GOP favorite Martha McSally for the chance to take on U.S. Rep. Ron Barber in Congressional District 2 this year. Meet Chuck Wooten:

Chief Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force (Retired) Chuck Wooten is announcing his candidacy for the Arizona Congressional District 2 (CD2) on the Republican ticket.

Chuck Wooten is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Congressman Ron Barber.

Wooten has achieved certain notoriety with his Open Letter to Congressman Paul Ryan regarding the reduction of military retirement payments in the Ryan-Murray Budget that was passed into law in late December 2013. [More about that Open Letter below.]

Wooten is running on a platform that includes steadfast, conservative positions on issues regarding border security, jobs for southeastern Arizonans, healthcare reform and reducing the federal deficit. Wooten offers a clear, common-sense alternative in his approach as compared to the other Republican candidates.

“I deliberately chose a campaign slogan that echoes loud and clear the message that southern Arizona conservatives have identified as the top qualities they demand in their representatives, “Trust. Leadership. Guts.” These qualities are my hallmark and my commitment to deliver to them when I earn their votes,” said Wooten.

Wooten will be making a formal announcement for his candidacy for Arizona Congressional District 2 on Monday, February 3, 2014, at 12:00 Noon on the steps of El Presidio Park, 160 W. Alameda Street in down town Tucson.

This week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This has been some week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy, hasn't it?

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2196 (.pdf), to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and to deny the citizens of Arizona their constitutional right to vote on a citizens referred referendum, was pulled after angry citizens and the media showed up at the hearing. More than 100,000 Arizonans signed the petitions for a "citizens veto" of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to vote to veto the legislature's anti-democratic measure. No matter.

The Arizona GOP's plan is to repeal HB 2305, and to pass the separate provisions for voter suppression in the bill as separate bills to make another citizens referendum virtually impossible, and to get their way by "skullduggery," as Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts called it. Are legislators plotting end run around voters in election-law referendum?" "Fast Eddie" promises to bring his bill back up for a hearing, possibly as early as this week.

On Friday, the Arizona GOP was in U.S. District Court arguing to a three judge panel of federal judges that you, the voters of Arizona, by enacting a citizens referred initiative to create the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), violated their federal constitutional right to gerrymander congressional districts in favor of GOP candidates. (Where are the Neo-Confederate "states' rights" federal "guvmint" haters now?) As I explained, their legal argument is entirely without merit. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. This is one of those frivolous "junk lawsuits" you hear about.

Dueling dipshits in the House battle for CD 1

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There's nothing like a self-involved legislator who wants to abuse the legislative body in which he serves for his own personal gain, especially when he is squaring off against another member of that legislative body for the same contested seat. The Arizona Capitol Times (subcription required) reports that Rep. Adam Kwasman (R-Oro Valley), has filed a bill to repeal Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) expansion plan as a ploy to posture himself against House Speaker Andy Tobin in the Republican primary for Arizona’s 1st Congressional District. Republican lawmaker proposes repealing Medicaid expansion.

These dueling dipshits should take their fight outside. There is no chance the coalition of votes that passed Governor Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) expansion are going to change their minds. This is all about appealing to the GOP crazy base in the GOP congressional primary. Only a court ruling -- which is still pending -- could upset this balance.

And you know who neither Kwasman nor Tobin give a damn about? The more than 300,000 desperate working poor in Arizona who are now eligible for medical care under AHCCCS, many for the first time in their lives. They are just collateral damage to these dueling dipshits.

Scott Smith is for sure not running as a moderate

I got the following email from Mesa Mayor and (now) GOP candidate for AZ Governor Scott Smith:

Friend,

Today, I was honored to file paperwork to begin my campaign for Governor of Arizona.

For the past six years as Mayor of Mesa, I have shown how governing using conservative principles of efficient, effective and limited government can create opportunity and help individuals and businesses succeed. I am confident the experience and successes I have gained as mayor can be a model for success for all of Arizona.

As Governor, my number one priority for Arizona will be to build a healthy economy, get Arizonans great jobs and brighten the future for our children.

As Mayor of Mesa, I dealt with a $62 million shortfall caused by the economy by reducing spending, reforming government operations, and eliminating burdensome regulations. Mesa residents are paying less in taxes than they were before I became Mayor.

I also brought economic opportunity by keeping the Chicago Cubs spring training in town, recruiting 5 private universities to our downtown, and led the effort to bring Apple to Arizona.

As a business owner, I turned around a troubled company into a $200 million company and looked at opportunities to create jobs and work in areas other builders had long ignored. I am proud of the success we achieved and the Arizonans we employed. I also know how hard it is when Washington bureaucrats force ill-conceived policies like Obamacare on the American people. As Governor I will stand up to Barack Obama and work with our Congressional delegation to replace it.

I am pro-life, support traditional marriage, am a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights, and believe Governor Brewer was right to demand the Federal Government secure our border.

I am a man of faith and it is at the core of who I am.

In addition, I am the only candidate in this race who as an executive in government has actually put true conservative principles into action to bring economic opportunity to Arizona while also shrinking the size of government.

Our state has amazing potential to lead the nation in job growth and economic prosperity. With continued conservative leadership, we can bring more companies like Apple to Arizona.

We can create additional high paying jobs for Arizonans while keeping fiscal discipline with government spending.

We can create a world-class education system for our children while also giving parents control over where their child attends school.

We can hold true to our conservative principles while also being leaders who bring people together to solve the challenges we face.

We can do this together and I ask that you please take a moment to join our campaign. Together, we can make Arizona the greatest state in America to live, work, and raise our families.

Sincerely,

Scott Smith

 

That's standard right wing boilerplate there: anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-gun, "school choice", drown the government. God, Obama-bashing. Yet I'm still being told what a nice, pragmatic, and moderate man he is. Of course I anticipate the inevitable protest: "Oh but you know he's just doing that for the primary!". Unless Scott Smith has given you his personal assurance that the uber-conservative stances he's taken are simply a ruse to fool Republican primary voters, you have no way of knowing that. If he hasn't told you that then you should realize that you are pinning your hopes on Smith being someone different from who he tells you he fundamentally is. I can tell you from my dating days that that is not a good idea.

Scott Smith for Governor? Beware of "centrist" mayors.

I'm about to do a post that is similar to one I did on Democratic Diva a while back but since that site is down and Brahm Resnik of 12 News in Phoenix just tweeted that Mesa Mayor Scott Smith intends to announce his bid for the GOP gubernatorial nod in Arizona, I'm going to repeat my warning:

There was a guy by the name of Pat McCrory in North Carolina. He was the Mayor of Charlotte, a medium-sized city which had enjoyed a good bit of high tech development in recent years. McCrory was considered a centrist, and was the darling of the Chamber of Commerce and media establishment types in NC. When he ran for governor in 2012, McCrory styled himself as a keen-eyed, business focused pragmatist. At debates and endorsement interviews he swore up and down he wasn't going to indulge the tea party ideologues in the state legislature. He was all about jobs jobs jobs! When he was specifically asked about abortion at one forum, he gave a one word answer - "no" - to signing any bill involving abortion into law. 

So does this mean that Jan Brewer is running for governor?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Accidental Governor, Jan Brewer, was on her way to becoming a footnote in history in 2010 until she embraced SB 1070 and churned up anti-immigrant hysteria to ride to victory.

As Brewer's PR guy Howie Fischer frequently reminds readers, Jan Brewer has not yet declared if she will be a candidate for governor this year (which would require a legal challenge to Arizona's term-limit provisions).

Jan Brewer is embracing SB 1070 again. So does this mean that Jan Brewer is running for governor? Howie Fischer reports, Brewer asks Supreme Court to allow expanded SB 1070 enforcement:

Gov. Jan Brewer is asking the nation’s high court to let Arizona enforce a 2010 law making it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants.

Legal papers filed Monday on the governor’s behalf at the Supreme Court contend there is nothing improper about the state having its own laws aimed at controlling immigration. John Bouma, Brewer’s chief legal counsel, said the fact that there are federal laws criminalizing the same conduct does not pre-empt state action.

* * *

The law in question makes it illegal for someone to transport, conceal, harbor or shield anyone unlawfully present in this country or “encourage or induce the alien to come to or live in Arizona.”

It is part of SB 1070, a broader package of measures designed to give police more power to question and detain those they believe are in the country illegally. Several provisions already have been voided by courts, including three by the Supreme Court itself, as preempted by federal law.

Let's play Bogus Lincoln Quotes

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Bogus Lincoln quotes" is probably a game more suited to Twitter (I recommend using Al Melvin's twitter feed for your drunken New Year's Eve parties), but I'll get things started:

"Cap'n Al deserves a Melvin for attributing quotes to me that I never said, and lying about it." -- Abraham Lincoln

Keep it clean folks! Points for being creative and funny.

Have fun!

UPDATE: Thanks to Wileybud -- here you go!

Primary races for Secretary of State - What I expect to hear from the candidates

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Democrats in Arizona now have a primary race for Secretary of State -- the chief elections officer in Arizona. Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor (LD 16) is joined by former Attorney General Terry Goddard as of Monday. Democrat Goddard to run for secretary of state.

On the Republican side we have the co-author of the GOP Voter Supression Act, HB 2305, Sen. Michele Reagan (subject to a "citizens veto" referendum on the 2014 ballot), Rep. Justin Pierce, former state Sen. Jack Harper, and self-funded millionaire Wil Cardon.

So let me lay down some markers of what I expect to hear from the candidates in the way of policy proposals for election law in Arizona.

I have been arguing for some time in favor of the "universal voter registration" proposals from the Brennan Center for Justice. Voter Registration Modernization | Brennan Center for Justice.

In a universal voter registration system, it would be the government's obligation to ensure that every eligible citizen was registered to vote. Individual citizens could opt out if they wished, but the registration process itself would no longer serve as a barrier to the right to vote.

Here are some of the important ways that federal policy can and should encourage the states to improve on the current voter registration system:

1. Mandate that the states put systems in place that would phase in universal voter registration, while preserving the states' ability to experiment with different systems.

2. Require states to immediately implement permanent registration, so that voters wouldn't have to re-register if they moved within a state.

3. Require states to implement Election Day registration, as a fail-safe mechanism for eligible voters missing from the voter rolls for any reason.

4. Provide the federal funding that states would need to ensure that every eligible voter is registered.

In 2013, Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown came within one vote in the state senate of passage of House Bill 3521, a universal voter registation bill, when a Democratic senator balked at voting for the bill. Secretary Brown promises to bring this bill back again in 2014.

When money is speech, democracy is in peril

I don't think it's possible to overstate how bad the AZ Supreme Court decision on Monday to allow astronomically high fundraising limits ($4000 for statewide and legislative races) is. It's pretty much taking the very worst aspects of our state's politics and injecting them with steroids.

In case you share the conceit of many in the Arizona establishment punditry class - AKA "the Village" - that moderation and pragmatism will reign once elections are completely in the hands of wealthy and wise "business leaders", let me disabuse you of that forthwith:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traditional Republicans to primary Tea Party radicals?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A fascinating headline in the Washington Post today: Business groups stand by Boehner, plot against tea party:

[I]nfluential organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are standing behind Boehner. More importantly, Boehner’s friends in the business community are getting ready to take sides in a few Republican primary races against tea party candidates in Michigan, Idaho and Alabama who could cause the House speaker more trouble.

* * *

Now that the shutdown and debt-ceiling fight have exposed a rift in the Republican Party, lines are being drawn in the battle for control: On one side, there is Boehner and his circle of powerful business allies. On the other, tea party lawmakers and activist groups such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth.

“I don’t know of anybody in the business community who takes the side of the Taliban minority,” said Dirk Van Dongen, longtime chief lobbyist for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors who has known Boehner since the lawmaker’s first election.

In the hallways of the country’s leading trade associations, there is talk about taking on tea party Republicans in at least three states.

Just three? Fight them everywhere they are!

Questions for Martha McSally: Government shutdown and default on the national debt

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics -- I am not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.

Martha McSally now has two primary opponents, Shelley Kais, President of Kais E Systems, Inc., who worked for the McSally campaign during the special election to fill Congresswoman Giffords’ seat, who has formed an exploratory committee. And Ed Martin, who announced his candidacy today.  Martin is a former spokesman for U.S. senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), and has been an occasional guest host on the radio show hosted by Tucson gabber Jon Justice since moving to Arizona. Martin's website is more of a jeremiad than it is a campaign web site.

So, on to hot topics:

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy of governing-by-extortion, i.e., taking the federal government hostage and demanding that Democrats submit to their hostage demands -- essentially to nullify the 2012 election results and to enact the GOP agenda that voters rejected last November -- or they will: (a) shut down the federal government and/or (b) default on the national debt for the first time in American history?

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy to shut down the federal government unless Democrats submit to their hostage demand to "defund Obamacare," which is a new version of the long-discredited and rejected doctrine of nullification through the force of governing-by-extortion?

Does Martha McSally support the Tea Party strategy of threatening to default on the national debt for the first time in American history unless Democrats submit to their hostage demand to "defund Obamacare," which is a new version of the long-discredited and rejected doctrine of nullification through the force of governing-by-extortion?

An open letter to Chad Campbell and Fred Duval...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

...and anyone else looking at entering the 2014 race for governor...and anyone looking to convince one or another candidate to drop out of the race to avoid a messy primary.

Earlier today, Tom Prezelski and Bob Lord, two of the contributors to Blog for Arizona, wrote "open letters" to State Rep. Chad Campbell.  Tom urged Campbell to drop out of the race, while Bob didn't go that far, instead suggesting that Campbell examine his motives for running, and possibly reevaluate his candidacy.

Time for a bit of a contrarian view.

A Sure Indicator of Dem Gutlessness

Posted by Bob Lord

Want to spot a Dem who won't stand up for progressive principles when it counts? This may sound counterintuitive, but watch for strong, loud, attention-grabbing progressive declarations on marriage equality and abortion rights. They're dead giveaways.

Fracturing the Republican Coalition

Let’s consider recent bill to fund Superstorm Sandy relief. Let’s look at the process that led to its passage. The vote in the House was:

                yea  nay   total
  Republicans    49  179     228
  Democrats     192    1     193
  total         241  180     421

This is a clear violation of the so-called Hastert rule, which says that the Speaker of the House should use his power to prevent the House from passing (or even voting on) a measure unless it enjoys support from a “majority of the majority” i.e. a majority of the members of the majority party. The rule is named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert, even though he inherited it from his predecessor, Newt Gingrich.

This rule has been violated only twice in 15 years, which is also twice in 15 days: once for the “fiscal cliff” vote on New Year’s Day, and once for the Sandy relief vote on January 15th.

If these violations of the Hastert rule are the start of a trend, it has tremendous significance. Mr. Boehner could decide he would rather work with moderate Democrats than work with the extreme elements of his own party. This would give him tremendous (but not unlimited) power to decide what would and would not be enacted.

<...more...>

Automated vote flipping for Romney: Crony capitalism at the ballot box? (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but the US needs serious election reform.

It should have happened after President George Bush and Florida's hanging chads stole the 2000 election. Remember, that was the year that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote by 271 vs 266, with one abstention. 

For decades, people have grumbled about the Electoral College and how out of date it is. In more recent elections, layers of complaints have been heaped on the pile-- complaints about the long, drawn out campaign season; the stupid primary/caucus system; the over-reliance on the opinions of voters in two tiny white states (New Hampshire and Iowa); the unending and increasingly nasty commercials; the evil robocalls and push-polls; the lies and spin (which the current Republican presidential ticket has taken to new heights); hackable electronic voting machines; and-- this year in particular-- the obscene amount of secret, dirty money that is being poured into the elections. 

Is anyone ready for real reform yet? Do you need more evidence that our "democracy" has been stolen by crony capitalists and big money?

Well... here you go, then...

Rigged Elections for Romney? from The Agonist...

A group of independent researchers caught a pattern of apparent vote flipping during the 2012 Republican primaries that consistently favored Mitt Romney. A form of election fraud, vote flipping occurs when votes are changed from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation... [more]

More examples of our broken system, some reform ideas, and a video after the jump.

TW and AZ Star on TUSD board race: Contrasting coverage shows media biases

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Undoubtedly one of the more contentious local races this election season is the non-partisan 12-person race for three unpaid positions on the Tucson Unified School District's (TUSD) Governing Board.

In this race, there are two University of Arizona professors, a call center supervisor, a Sunnyside School District employee, a self-employed landscaper, a lawyer, a Chamber of Commerce VP, a former TUSD teacher, a Pima County employee, and three business owners. (Isn't democracy grand?)

In this week's Tucson Weekly (TW), columnist Mari Herreras tackled the challenging task of profiling the 11 of the 12 candidates. (One of the business owers bowed out of the interview process.) When covering a hot topic like the TUSD board, I would have hoped that the TW would have chosen a more neutral reporter. Otherwise, they're just opening themselves up to comments from some blogger. 

Although the TW story leads with some of the high points of the Mexican American Studies (MAS) controversy, it goes on to say, "Mexican American Studies isn't the only issue that the district faces." It's definitely not the only issue, but MAS must be the most important issue for Herreras and the TW.

I counted the topic mentions in the TW article, and here are the stats:

1) MAS- 30 mentions

2) TUSD's looming $17 million budget deficit- 10 mentions

3) School closures- 4 mentions

4) Miscellaneous topics that got 1-2 mentions:
    declining enrollment 
    spending more money in classrooms
    graduation rates
    class sizes
    skills/curriculum
    standards 
    student achievement 
    desegregation 

Overall, the article discussed TUSD Board Superindent Dr. John Pedicone's raise and board politics more than student achievement or graduation rates.

In contrast, the Arizona Daily Star ran two articles highlighting the views of the TUSD candidates this week. One very lengthy article focused completely on budget and finance, while the other one tackled other issues, including what the candidates believe is the biggest problem facing the district and what they think about MAS. When asked about TUSD's biggest challenges, the answers ran the gamut but mostly focused on budget/finance or student achievement. 

So, the TW coverage focused more on MAS than any other issue, and theStar devoted more column inches to budgetary problems. What about graduation rates, student achievement, skill-building, curriculum development, class sizes, testing, teacher development, teacher pay, money in the classrooms, white flight, charter schools, desegregation, Prop 204, or squeezing more money out of the Legislature?

If you want to learn more about this race and the issues facing TUSD, come to the candidate forum sponsored by Drinking Liberally tonight-- Wednesday, September 26-- at The Shanty.

The Rs' LD13 primary mess: Unleash the lawyers!

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

On Tuesday, the Arizona Capitol Times broke the story that Darin Mitchell, one of the winners of the LD13 Republican primary for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives, apparently doesn't live in that district.

Note: the link is to my post about the story; the Cap Times' story is now behind a subscriber paywall.

The incumbent legislator that Mitchell ousted, Russ Jones, took a few days to mull his options, ultimately deciding to file a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court (link courtesy KPNX-TV).

In the lawsuit, Jones asks the court to enjoin (aka - forbid) the AZ Secretary of State and the county recorders in Maricopa and Yuma counties (LD19 spans parts of both counties) from placing Mitchell's name on the general election ballot.

He also asks for court costs and attorney fees, but does *not* specifically ask the court to place his name on the ballot in Mitchell's stead.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a big grain of salt (meaning that I could be way off here), but I don't think this is going to go far.

1.  There is a 10-day period after the deadline for filing candidate petitions in June when
candidates (and non-candidates) can challenge the ballot eligibility of other candidates.  Fisher availed himself of that time to challenge the petitions of another candidate, successfully forcing that candidate out of the race; Jones did not challenge Mitchell's residency at that time.  I'm guessing that the Court will be loathe to give Jones a second opportunity at this late date, particularly in order to overturn the results of an election.

2.  There are a couple of typos in the legal filing.  It refers to Mitchell as "Shaw" a couple of times -

From page 4 of the linked .pdf

There was another instance of this on page 5 of the filing.

The typos alone might not be enough for the Court to dismiss the filing (I think "intent" is obvious here, and I think that the filers clearly intended to name "Mitchell", not some mysterious "Shaw", but
I really don't know), but if the Court is looking for a way to not get involved in this mess, the typos could give it a technical, rather than substantive (and hence, easily reversible), excuse to dismiss.

3.  Neither I, nor anyone I talked to about this, is aware of any Arizona case law that is on point about this (to be fair, neither I nor the people I spoke to are attorneys, so there may be an obscure case that we missed), so if the Court does take any position on this, they'll be setting precedent.


Depending on the latitude that the Court has (and this was something I really would have preferred to ask an attorney about), they could split hairs, saying that it is too late to knock Fisher off of the ballot, but because of the residency issue it could determine that Fisher is ineligible to serve in the lege until he meets the residency requirement.

In addition, if Fisher is actually kicked off of the general election ballot, it creates a real mess because that would only leave one ballot candidate for the two House seats that are up for election - incumbent Steve Montenegro (R).  No Democrats, Independents, or other party candidates are on the general election ballot.  That means that the 2nd seat would go to whichever candidate runs the best write-in campaign.

If that happens, and a credible Democrat in LD13 wants to step up, call me.  I'll volunteer for your campaign.  I'm pretty sure that the MCDP has my number, or you can email me or reach out on Facebook.


Having said all that, I love this stuff, and not just in a "better them than us" sort of way (though I freely admit that I'm glad this is happening with the Rs and not the Ds).

This stuff is fascinating, in a "nuts and bolts" of politics way.

Yes, I'm a political geek, and yes, I'm proud of it.

 

The Republicans like to chirp about "voter fraud". What's their stance on "candidate fraud"?

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

Republicans all over the country have been crying wolf voter fraud to rationalize their efforts to suppress the voting rights of minorities.  The fact that the number of cases is actually miniscule is irrelevent.  They aren't trying to address the alleged problem that they are citing.

They're trying to make voting more difficult for eligible voters from groups that tend to support Democratic candidates, namely the poor and minorities.

One thing that they haven't been crying about is candidate fraud.

To whit, from the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Hank Stephenson -

Political newcomer
Darin Mitchell defeated an incumbent legislator in the Aug. 28 primary election,
but it appears he never should have been on the ballot because he lives in a
home outside Legislative District 13.

Mitchell claimed in a
sworn affidavit that he lives in a 3,600-square-foot home on a golf course in
Litchfield Park. In reality, the home is vacant, with mattresses covering the
front windows, a construction dumpster in the driveway and construction permits
taped to the window. Neighbors say the house has been empty for at least a year,
and a contractor working on the home confirmed nobody lives
there.

Oopsie.

In 2010, a Republican attempted a similar stunt, trying to run for a legislative seat in District 17 (central and north Tempe and south Scottsdale) while living in District 20 (south Tempe, Ahwatukee, and a bit of Chandler).  One of the then-vice chairs of the AZGOP, Augustus Shaw, lived in south Tempe with his wife and family, but claimed that he actually resided in the home of his in-laws in central Tempe.

When called on it, he claimed that he did it for his autistic son.

Yeah, I know what you are thinking, and the judge didn't buy it either.  Shaw was thrown off of the ballot.

On the bright side, however, at least Shaw actually picked an address where people lived; apparently, Darin Mitchell has couldn't be bothered to put in that much research time, and picked a nearly uninhabitable structure for his address.

One would think that they would have learned the lesson from 2010, but apparently, one would think wrong.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but whatever else happens, don't expect Mitchell to face criminal charges - the Arizona Attorney General and Arizona Secretary of State, people who might be expected to weigh on criminal proceedings in matters like this, are Republicans who are known for placing a higher value on partisan affiliation than on the law.

A good day for women...

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Tuesday's Arizona primary was a good day for women. 

As we all know, the Arizona Legislature was on the forefront of the War on Women in the spring of 2012. Our legislators passed some of the country's most draconian laws restricting access to contraception, crippling Planned Parenthood, claiming that personhood begins before conception, and forcing women to submit to vaginal ultrasounds against their will. 

Primary day was a good day for women because all eleven of the women candidates backed by the pro-choice group Arizona List won their races. The only way we can change Arizona's reactionary ways is to change our government in Phoenix. We're counting on these women to help us do that.

Candidate list after the jump.

NOW endorses Raul Grijalva & Kyrsten Sinema

by Pamela Powers Hannley

In a year of unprecedented attacks on the rights of women in the US, an endorsement from the National Organization for Women (NOW) carries a lot of weight for us feminists because it tells us who are friends really are and who will stand up for women.

As usual, when there is a hot-button, righ-wing issue, Arizona leads the nut-case pack. The War on women was a fertile field for the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer.

Brewer stops preventive service funding for Planned Parenthood (video)

War on Women: AZ Legislature fuels the fire

Money = Choice (video)

Where are all the women at? We're at war.

Unfortunately, only a handful of Arizona politicians were at the forefront in the pushback against extremists on the right. Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD3), State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (currently running for Congress in CD9), and Dr. Richard Carmona (currently running for US Senate against Teapublican Congressman Jeff Flake) spoke up earlier and more consistently than any other Arizona politicians. 

NOW has endorsed Grijalva and Sinema in their primary races for Congress.

Who was endorsed by NOW is as interesting as who was not endorsed because it clearly reflects who didn't stand up for women (or who waited months until the outcry was so thunderous that they were forced to speak up.) For example, Blue Dog Congressional Dems Ron Barber (CD2), Matt Heinz (CD2), Amanda Aguirre (CD3), J. Manuel Arreguin (CD3), Andrei Cherny (CD9), and Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) are not on the NOW endorsement list, but neither are progressive-backed candidates like Dave Shapira (CD9) or Wenona Benally Baldenegro (CD1). 

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.

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.

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...

Maricopa hullabaloo: Can the Dems beat Arpaio?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Maricopa County Democrats smell blood in the water. The notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio is facing multiple legal battles-- finally-- and the Dems think that maybe... just maybe... they can oust him from the office he has held for decades.

There are two Democrats running in the primary: John Rowan and Paul Penzone. There is a lot of verbal wrangling amongst Maricopa Dems regarding who is the best candidate. (Hey, it's politics.) Rowan, who has come out strongly as anti-SB1070 and pro-reform-- is seen as the more progressive choice. Labeled a "party darling" by activists, Penzone is much better funded than Rowan-- but not anywhere near as well-funded as Arpaio, who has millions on hand to trounce a challenger. 

Is Maricopa County ready to clean up the sheriff's office? 

Watch videos of both candidates after the jump.

Saturday Editor's Notes

By Michael Bryan

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 Jim Nintzel of Tucson Weekly and AZPM's Roundtable fame will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and experience the Nintz first-hand.

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.

Dr. Heinz goes to Naco (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Those of us grumbling about newly-elected Democratic Congressman Ron Barber's Republican voting record must remember that Barber still has a primary challenger for the CD2 race in November. 

After the jump, check out State Legislator and Democratic challenger Dr. Matt Heinz touring and speaking in Naco. Check out his website for townhalls and upcoming appearances. Heinz will hold a Happy Hour fundraiser at Woody's Bar in Tucson on July 16 at 6 p.m., and he will be in Sierra Vista on July 18.

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.

Legislative District 9 (The New One) Democratic Representative Candidates' Debate

By Michael Bryan

We had a great discussion of the issues facing Arizona Wednesday evening at Drinking Liberally at The Shanty, here in Tucson.

I moderated a debate among the three Demcratic candidates for State House in LD9: Dustin Cox, Mohur Sihdwa, and Victoria Steele. We convered a lot of ground, and the resulting event was enlightening and a must listen for any primary voter who wants to make a fully informed choice between these three worthy candidates.

Ld9debate

You can also download the MP3 recording of the event for listening on your portable device merely by right clicking and saving the above link.

The sound quality of the recording is problematic at times, especially at the begining with the birds singing as the sun goes down, and at those times when we have a train or loud engine passing by.

We expect to do more of these forums in the near future. The problems with ambient noise you encounter when recording on an iPhone (which is what I did) can be easily mitigated by using a simple directional mic. There is a great inexpensive one, the iRig MIC Cast, that I would like to purchase for these occassions. I am asking for your help in doing so. Any little bit helps, and the goal is just $45. Please chip in!

Drinking Liberally LD9 House Democrats Debate, Wednesday, May 30th at 6pm

By Michael Bryan

This Wednesday night, 5/30, Drinking Liberally will host a debate between the three Democratic candidates for the Arizona House of Representatives for LD9: Dustin Cox, Mohur Sidhwa, and Victoria Steele.

Drinking Liberally starts at 6pm (at The Shanty on 4th Avenue); the debate will start promptly at 6:30. The debate will be moderated by me.

You can submit suggested questions in comments.

The debate will be audio recorded and made available here on the blog.

So come on down, meet your LD9 candidates, hear them think on their feet, and ask any question you want answered... oh, and have a drink :)

This debate is the first in a planned series of State Legislative debates. 

The Real Impact of Obama’s Same Sex Marriage Stance

Posted by Bob Lord

As AZBlueMeanie has pointed out, this was quite a week in the Presidential campaign. I found the analysis of the “thinking right” particularly interesting. The Wall Street Journal noted the political risk that Obama was taking, especially in North Carolina, where voters adopted a constitutional same sex marriage ban on a 60-40 vote. In today’s NY Times, Ross Douthat contended that Obama was winning the news cycles but losing the campaign. In Douthat’s opinion, Obama was taking a page out of the Republican playbook by trying to distract voters with social issues so they vote against their own self-interest. This strategy would fail in 2012, according to Douthat, because voters were too focused on the economy.

I may be missing something, but it seems like the analysis by the main stream media on the right (and the left, for that matter) is about a millimeter deep. Is Obama’s strategy really just to “win the news cycle?” Why does Obama’s stance constitute such a political risk? Is it simply because approximately half the voters oppose same sex marriage? Shouldn’t the analysis include an evaluation of how this fits in with Obama’s overall strategy? And shouldn’t the analysis of the political risk include an evaluation of the risk of not taking this stance and an analysis of where voters on each side of the issue would be without regard to same sex marriage and whether Obama’s stance has the potential to move them one way or the other?

Start with North Carolina. I was on the treadmill one morning watching Morning Joe, and they took it as a given that Obama’s announcement of his stance on same sex marriage effectively was a concession of North Carolina in November. That would be true only if over 80% of the yes votes on North Carolina’s constitutional amendment were those of one issue voters, or at least voters to whom same sex marriage is a high priority issue. But polls of Black voters indicate that community is generally opposed to same sex marriage. So, should we really be taking it as a given that the Black voters who supported the constitutional amendment will vote for Romney? How about North Carolina’s Latino voters? And how about the remainder of that 60%? Which of them otherwise would be voting for Obama but now will support Romney? The bible thumpers? No, they wee already supporting Romney because they think Obama is a baby killer. The gun nuts? No, they wee already were supporting Romney because the NRA and Ted Nugent told them to. Those racists who are neither bible thumpers nor gun nuts? You answer that one. Those homophobes who are neither bible thumpers, nor gun nuts, nor racists? Maybe, but how large is this demographic, and didn’t Obama already lose them with his stances on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and DOMA?

Seems to me that it’s hard to make the argument that Obama’s stance will cost him many votes he otherwise would have had. Yes, it will cost him some votes, but if there’s not an identifiable prototype voter he'll lose, the number of actual votes lost will be relatively small. The real risk involved is that his statements could energize the homophobic crowd the way Karl Rove did in Ohio in 2004 and that they otherwise would not have been energized. So, how large is that risk, and is taking it justified by the potential reward? As for the risk, the focus should be the group of social conservatives that was not otherwise energized but will be because of Obama’s pronouncement. Polls indicates consistently that the population as a whole is moving towards acceptance of same sex marriage. In all likelihood, that would mean that at the same time voters are moving into the “support same sex marriage” column, others are moving from the “strongly oppose same sex marriage” to the “moderately oppose same sex marriage column.” Once that happens, a voter may not move into Obama’s column, but also won’t care enough to do much more than vote, and may not even vote if busy on election day. As for those voters still in the “strongly opposed” column? In all likelihood, they already were energized against Obama. Yes, this may energize them even further, but it seems the difference will be oh so marginal.

The last piece in the analysis is the upside of Obama’s pronouncement. This is where I think Douthat and others are really missing it. The significance of Obama winning the news cycle is how it fits into the overall campaign strategy, which by all appearances is to chip away, voter block by voter block, at the groups from whom Romney can find support. In this one week, Obama took the following groups and move them further from from Romney’s reach, in many cases irretrievably: fiscally conservative gays and gay friendlies; fiscally conservative parents of gay children who care deeply about their children’s happiness; people who were bullied in school; and parents of children who have been bullied at school.

This I believe is a taste of what we’ll see over the coming months. The bullying story was taken from an opposition research book that probably is four inches thick. If you consider that Romney was so careless and so lacking in foresight that he didn’t even move his investments out of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands in time to avoid them showing up on his 2010 tax return, it’s hard to believe there are not items from decades ago that will cast Romney in a poor light. The release of the bullying story was exquisitely timed to contrast with Obama’s empathetic statement about gays, but it also could very well reflect a decision to paint a picture of Mitt Romney’s life, over the coming months, starting with his early years. Don’t be surprised if the next bomblets are related to his college years or his years as a missionary. By the time we get to October, the Obama campaign will have introduced the voters to a Mitt Romney who is offensive to pretty much every voter who was at one time in both his and Obama’s reach.

Kelly Camp Releases Meaningless Poll

By Michael Bryan

The Kelly campaign today leaked a poll by National Research which headlines him "beating" Ron Barber 49% to 45%.

The poll also indicates that he is the only GOP candidate who can do that. Imagine that. Barber beats Sitton and Antenori by a few points (43% to 39% and 46% to 40%) and ties with McSally (42% each).

The problem with that headline is the size of poll and the margin of error.

The poll is only 300 likely voters (with no note as to the party composition of the respondents - and thus totally irrelevant) with a MoE of a whopping +/- 5.66%.

That means that all the candidates are statistically tied. All of them. The poll is essentially meaningless. Anyone could win.

The touted 4 percent Kelly "win" is well within the MoE.

So what should the headline be?

Kelly Lies With Statistics.

Carmona on Maddow Demonstrates a Key Reason to Nominate Him

Posted by Michael Bryan

Richard Carmona went on the Maddow Show to stand up for women's reproductive health privacy rights. BlueMeanie also posted on this appearance.

Carmona's iron-clad credibility on health issues and his national stature allows him excellent access to media to counter the GOP's War on Women in Arizona. It's a powerful argument for his nomination given the record of the GOP's likely nominee, Jeff Flake, on these issues.

See the video below the fold...

Antenori's Amateurish Election Pitch Spreadsheet

By Michael Bryan

An interesting little info-graphic from Frank Antenori's CD8/2 campaign:

What pops out for me is the absolutey amateurish way this was put together.

It's clearly just a spreadsheet. And just as clearly the person who threw it together has no concept of style or design, or even basic typographical competence.

The font sizes are oddly mismatched - just look at Antenori's name! The capitalization is haphazard. The spacing, bolding, and cell fill all seem practically random.

This is a communication from a person who wants to be a Member of Congress? It looks like it was hammered out by a college kid coming off a bender with an assignment due in a hour.

Now, let's consider the substance.

The main comparison seems to be with Kelly; Sitton and McSally seem to be on the table mainly as an afterthought, and the cell fill colors on Antenori's and Kelly's columns seem to reinforce that. Weirdly, as to community ties and education, Sitton and McSally make Antenori look light.

The main raps on Kelly seem to be his loss to Giffords in 2010, his rather flexible connections to the district, and - of all the things for a Republican to focus on while Santorum is waging a War on the Educated - the assertion that Kelly is a college drop-out.

Frank also seems to be claiming a superior ability to attract independent voters based on his election in LD30. This is a bit misleading as Frank compares apples and oranges. In CD8, he cites an 8% GOP advantage for Kelly, which is true, but in comparison to Dems ONLY. In LD30, he claims that he only had a 41% GOP registration, which is true, but is misleading since that percentage is of ALL voters. Only comparing Dems to GOP voters in LD30, the GOP had a whopping 40% registration advantage. Hardly a challenging electoral environment for a Republican.

Plus, Frank only beat his Democratic opponent in 2008 by a mere 6% despite that massive advantage in registration. Though, admittedly he did better in the sweep of 2010, whomping his Dem opponent 60/40. So, is Frank a draw for indpendents? Not so much. I'm surprised to see him even making the argument that he has better appeal outside the party: neither he nor Kelly are really the sort to care about their independent appeal. Both these guys are all about feeding the red meat to the base, not making the GOP tent bigger.

Over all, however, Antenori makes a powerful argument that he is a more experienced, committed, and viable candidate than Kelly. If he had made the pitch without such an amateurish presentation, it might even have been compelling.

Come on, Frank. You need to execute better than this to kick Kelly's smarmy punk ass in this primary. Nut up and pay for some actual talent next time instead of letting some volunteer knock something together on his laptop.

My Own Santorum... Cocktail, That Is.

By Michael Bryan

Saturdays are cocktail day around the Bryan household. Friends come over and I play bartender. Sometimes I go for the classics, but today I was inspired.

He died for your cocktail

A bar owner in New York has gotten some great press by inventing his own version of the Santorum Cocktail. I couldn't help try my hand at creating my own version of a Santorum Cocktail for my friends.

Here's what I came up with:

• 1 oz any white liquor (I used white rum, which plays well with the sweet ingredients)
• 1 oz Benedictine (a nod to Santorum's Catholicism)
• 1/2 oz chocolate liqueur (I used Godiva, but any will do. Just make sure it is brown, to give the drink an appropriate color)
• 1 1/2 oz half and half, or cream (I prefered half and half, cause it sounds like a sexual service you can order from a prostitute, though cream sounds appropriately dirty, too...)
• 1/2 an egg white (gives an appropriately thick and sticky texture and a good bit of froth)

Grate some chocolate and rim your glass with it using a little lemon juice or liqueur to mosten the rim. Shake all the ingredients over ice in a boston shaker and strain into the rimmed glass. Sprinkle the top of the drink with a little of the extra grated chocolate. Garnish with something appropriately ghoulish. I choose a plain vanilla crucified Jesus stuck to a cocktail straw, but aborted fetuses, or mini dildoes, or whatever you might have to hand would be equally appropriate.

Enjoy!

In Case You Missed It: Martha McSally To Attend Drinking Liberally Tucson This Sunday

Posted by Michael Bryan

At Drinking Liberally we love a good argument. Not the shouting, ranting non-sense that often passes for political dialogue these days, but respectful, challenging, and meaningful discussion of political and philosophical differences.

Republican politicos have joined the liberals at Drinking Liberally for such discussions in the past: Frank Antenori, Vic Williams, Jon Paton, Ray Carroll, and several others have been guests at Tucson's Drinking Liberally.

Martha McSally will be joining that list of conservatives this Sunday at the Shanty starting at 6pm. Martha has recently thrown her hat in the ring for both the CD8 specials and CD8 regular elections. Whether you're a D, a R, or an I, come on down, meet the candidate, discuss the issues, and share a drink.

Click through for more about Martha McSally...

Will the GOP Establishment Steal the Arizona Primary for Romney?

Posted by Michael Bryan

If you have been following this topsy-turvey GOP primary contest, you might already know that Mitt Romney won Iowa... until he didn't.

The night of the caucus, despite incomplete results and an incredibly narrow lead for Romney, the Iowa GOP chairment went ahead and called it Romney. Yay, Romney wins... and goes on to win New Hampsire. An unprecedented feat for any GOP candidate other than a sitting President! Great! Romney is the man to beat Obama!

But wait...

Then the leadership of the Iowa GOP hemmed and hawed about the result in Iowa being too close to call... oh, no one will ever know who won... oh, maybe Santorum actually won... oh, I guess Santorum actually did win a little. Ooops.

And then the Iowa GOP Chairman resigned in disgrace.

The Iowa GOP's establishment's unusal actions essentially handed Romney a win he did not earn, and did not deserve, but which kept the "prohibitive front-runner" narrative on which Romney's wounded nomination bid requires. They undermined the critical momentum of the Santorum campaign at a critical time in the nominating process.

Someone of a suspicious cast of mind might suspect this was intentional.

That's Gotta Hurt...

Now, with Newt being up, and then being down, Santorum is looking ever stronger after three straight wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Surely, Romney needs another win to off-set the narrative of a Santorum surge (eww...). So where is such a victory against the CW going to come from?

With the old gold bug and Rupplestiltskin impersonator Ron Paul facing a media narrative of his own (that he hasn't, and can't, win a single state primary outright), he camps out in Maine to grind out a victory in this decidely independent-minded and retail politics-friendly backwater. Surely, if he's going to win anywhere, it has to be here.

But no. Romney pulls out another impossibly close victory in Maine against Paul.

Or does he?

And soon perhaps, the Chairman of the Maine GOP resigns in disgrace?

Once again the Maine GOP establishment jumped the gun on incomplete data and an incredibly thin margin to hand victory to Romney. Just like in Iowa, perhaps... Noticing a pattern? Noticing how it benefits one particular candidate? Again, suspicious minds might conjecture...

But this time is different. This time, the GOP establishment actually actively ignored results from some areas, reporting them as no votes in order to preserve Romney's lead. This time, there are votes out there still be cast as some county caucuses were delayed due to weather. It may yet be that Maine will be flipped to Ron Paul.

So, my suspicious mind sees a pattern. Maybe your doesn't. But consider this...

Romney is on the ropes. He is expected to win in Michigan, because he is something of a favorite-son there. He is expected to win in Arizona, because our politics are dominated by the East Valley Mormons. So what if he doesn't win here?

That would be bad. Very bad for Romney. And it looks like Santorum is surging across Arizona (again, eww...). Santorum is approaching a statistical dead heat with Romney here. We could have another sqeaker. And you know what that means... or at least you do if you have a suspicious mind.

The GOP establishment here is strongly Mormon. The GOP establishment everywhere wants Romney, not Santorum, to run against Obama. The GOP establishment in Arizona has the same opportunities to finesse the results of a close race as the GOP establishment in Iowa and Maine availed themselves of to wrongly (corruptly?) hand a close race to Romney.

Could it happen here, too?

I'm just saying... I have a suspicious mind. And if you are a Santorum lover (again, eww...), perhaps you should be suspicious, too. And be vigilant. And hold your Party's leaders feet to the fire to ensure that no 'pre-mature' announcements, or 'overlooked' votes, or 'clerical errors' happen here, too.

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...

The Santorum Surge... Ewww.

Posted by Michael Bryan

Some folks are concerned about the sudden appeal of Rick Santorum (and his sweater vests) in the GOP primaries and what that might say about the direction of his Party.

The latest Gallup tracking polls indicate that Santorum is in third place tie with Gingrich in NH, sitting at just under 10% (after Romney and Huntsman). He is also in a strong 3rd in South Carolina at almost 20%. Is there a path to nomination for the Catholic Taliban from Pennsylvania?

In short, no way.

Santorum is having a few good weeks as a result of his 'surprising' statistical tie with Romney in the Iowa Caucus, but it won't translate into any sustainable momentum or further wins.

What really happened in Iowa? Santorum 'won' in Iowa in the same fashion that a cockroach will 'win' a nuclear war.

All the fire was focused on Gingrich, and he withered and died under it as evangelicals were reintroduced to a man who only claimed to share their values.

With evangelical-based candidates Perry and Bachman already having discredited themselves during their 15 minutes of front-runner fame, the relatively obscure Santorum was the only man left standing for disspirited evangelical voters to support. Given that some 2/3rds of Iowa caucus attendees self-identify with the evangelical right, it's only surprising that Santorum didn't win out-right against the Mormon Mitt Romney.

Iowa was Santorum's high-water mark. He will remain a viable protest vote of evangelical voters confronted with the choice between a 'non-Christian' Romney, the 'values-challenged' Gingrich, and the 'libertard' Paul, but he hasn't the money or organization to continue his campaign past South Carolina without another win.

What might the future hold for Santorum?

Gov. Gary Johnson (yes, he actually was running for the GOP nomination), having found it impossible to find any traction in his own party's nomination race, recently defected the GOP primary to seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party.

The Donald (yes, he actually thought he could get nominated) continues to make occassional noises about an independent campaign, having been soundly rejected by GOP primary voters (er... actually, poll answerers, would be more accurate) (once they stopped being amused by the idea of his candidacy).

And one certainly wonders if Gov. Buddy Roemer (yes, he actually was running for the GOP nomination) might take an independent course, having been essentially shut out of the GOP race because of his anti-special interest money campaign.

Given the deep dissatisfactions of significant factions within the GOP with the primary field, and the apparent inevitibility of a Romney nomination, it seems possible that Santorum might actually decide to launch an independent campaign under the banner of a third party, such as the Christian identity-centered Constitution Party.

From a Democratic perspective, such a splintering of the GOP coalition would be a perfect assist to the reelection of Obama.

Santorum's campaign might be a useful bellweather for how the GOP coalition fares. If he eventually resigns himself to the nomination of Romney (or the very unlikely Gingrich) and endorses his Party's candidate, the coalition might make it through 2012 intact. If he jumps ship for an indendent or third-party bid, it could be the beginning of the end of the red-headed step-child role of evangelical voters in the GOP coalition.

That might be the best thing that Santorum could ever do for America. Besides lending his name to a previously unnamed substance, of course.

Arizona a Key Expansion State for Obama Campaign

Posted by Michael Bryan

The Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina outlines several possible re-election scenarios for Obama in 2012. One of the most interesting for us is for Obama to win Arizona. With no favorite son in the race this time, Messina says that polling indicates that Arizona is winnable (Obama is beating the GOP field, except Romney who ties statistically).

I don't know whether we will see major campaigning in Arizona this Presidential season, but it certainly seems possible that Obama will make a big push for the western states. Messina is from Colorado and seems enthusiastic about putting Arizona, Colorado and Nevada in play.

Much will depend on the GOP nominee, of course. I expect that Romney will be the GOP candidate. He's well positioned to win the Iowa caucus. He continues to hold a solid 25% in Iowa polls, and he seems to get a great deal of second choice roll over from supporters of other candidates, because he is perceived as the most electable of the field. In caucuses, such second choice support is the key to victory if there is no dominant favorite going in.

Romney has a lock on New Hampshire, so it is likely that he is going to have a great deal of momentum heading into South Carolina. Even if he only places second or third there, he'll become very hard to stop, as none of the other candidates have the resources or infrastructure to sustain a protracted delegate race.

The candidate with the best chance at stopping Romney is Gingrich, but his campaign appears to hit the top of its "anybody but Romney" surge a few weeks too early. Santorum appears to be having some late success in Iowa, but try to say "Santorum surge" or, worse, "Santorum spurt" without truly unfortunate images occurring to you :)

Between Obama making a serious bid for Arizona's electoral votes and the scramble for seats in new Congressional and state legislative districts, we may see a very exciting campaign season in Arizona in 2012, indeed.