 |
Arizona's own EspressoPundit Ruminations of an over-caffeinated political junkie |
||||
|
August 31, 2006 No New Moderates The biggest legislative race this cycle is Rosati vs. Allen. It was covered in the Republic and Tribune today. Both papers left out a key fact--Rosati would be a footnote without clean elections money. Here's how the Republic put it. Allen is relying on the two big advantages she has over Rosati: money and endorsements. In June, Allen reported $102,497 on hand, compared with Rosati's $2,271. Rosati is running as a Clean Elections candidate. If the reporters had checked the Clean Elections website they would know that Rosati has received over $57,000 in clean elections funding. The Tribune is reporting that Allen only has $56,000 in the bank. Allen claims that she is ahead in her internal polls and she may indeed win. But let's not forget that it is Clean Elections that has empowered conservatives to run against moderates. Legacy moderates survive but they are endangered. I've mentioned before that Conservatives always had a natural base and an army of supporters but they couldn't get past the Chamber of Commerce types who controlled the money. Those gatekeepers are now meaningless. With equal money, the candidate with the natural base and supporters will beat the candidate who happens to be a lobbyist favorite. Allen (and Hellon) may survive one more cycle, or they may go the way of Binder, Mead, Jayne and half a dozen others. But I think we have seen the end of moderates beating conservatives for open seats. There may be the occasional throwback, but when the legacy moderates are gone, the breed will die. Clean Elections is a poster child for unintended consequences.
The Definition of Irony Jon Talton's latest rant on capitalism includes this missive about the pharmaceutical industry. They will get no relief from Wall Street (much less from government, for now). But behind its short-term mania is a measure of common cause. Investors are telling Big Pharma it is too bloated, too engaged in destructive competition, too reluctant to use information technology. But the truth can be a bitter pill, and things may get worse before they get better. Dude, you work for a newspaper. Sure the Pharmaceutical industry is undergoing some changes because it's growing and developing new products. But Talton's industry is in the midst of a long slide into oblivion. Did you hear the joke about the milk man? No? That's because no one under 40 knows what a milk man is. Someday, when I tell my grandchildren that there used to be a business that printed 24 hour old stories on 4 pound bundles of paper and threw them into everyone's driveway, and that people only read a couple articles, clipped a few coupons and threw the rest away so that it could spend 40 years decomposing in landfills...they will think I'm making it up. They will ask me who delivered the those bundles and I will reply...the milk man. (But "Big Pharma" will still be going strong.)
The Definition of Hypocrisy
By now you have seen the photoshoped picture of Katie Couric that CBS foisted on the public. Let me put in my two cents on why this is such a big deal. The mainstream media is a business. They like to think that they are offering a public good and freedom of the press yada yada, but the bottom line is they are in it for the money. And when they have the opportunity to bend the truth to make money they do so--and then they get on a high horse and complain about the oil and pharmaceutical industries. Well, "Big Oil" provides the energy you need to live and "Big Pharma" provides the drugs that have doubled your life expectancy. What does CBS produce? The last bastion of liberalism is the ability to at least claim that they are sensitive to women. We know the stereotype of the red neck. He likes his women thin, big chested and compliant. He doesn't watch CBS--unless there is a tractor pull--or listen to NPR. Liberals are supposed to be above that. So I find it stunning that CBS would take someone as popular and natural as Kaite Couric and decide they need to "improve" her by shaving 20 or 30 pounds of of her. She looks great--she looks normal--in the picture on the left. CBS betrays its stereotypes, its greed and its hypocrisy in one defining moment.
August 30, 2006 I'm your Child's Teacher... Some folks at Tucson High were planning an assembly to commemorate the 5th anniversary of 9/11. But Mr. Johnsen--the American and world history teacher--isn't happy about it. So he wrote a letter to the faculty. Here's my favorite paragraph. So I have a proposal. On this the 5th anniversary of 9/11, how about we resist the Pavlovian nationalist platitudes for a change, and instead transcend our shock, grief and anger to the point where we can 1) honestly examine what part if any US policies play in breeding such hate and violence against us, and 2) begin engaging in democratic dialogue and coalition-building to determine what kind of community (national and world) we want to promote. Is this a sample of what he teaches in class? Does he earn a state check by telling Arizona kids that commemorating 9/11 is a "Pavlovian nationalist platitude"? I'm curious what he thinks about Pearl Harbor Day. Does he really believe that we should engage in democratic dialogue and build coalitions with Osama and his thugs to determine what kind of community we want to promote? I think the United States tried that once...it was called the Carter administration, and my recollection is that it didn't work out very well. Here's the entire letter. Regarding today’s announcements (8/28/06) regarding 9/11: What happened on September 11th was indeed tragic. Other adjectives would apply as well: unethical, immoral, shameful, needless, heartbreaking, unacceptable, etc. In my view, however, what it was not was a “senseless” tragedy (as was announced today over the intercom) any more than it was “unthinkable” (as was the headline in the AZ Daily Star the day after 9/11). To me both terms suggest just a tad too much that there was simply no conceivable reason for 9/11 to have happened. Splitting hairs? I don’t think so. It seems to me that attacking Americans through terrorism is making sense to more and more people. That’s scary. However twisted the logic may be that would bring people to commit and/or sanction such indiscriminate violence, it would be illogical to deny that it happens in response to something. All media efforts notwithstanding, by now it seems abundantly clear that the story does not begin with a group of ultra-fringe radical “Islamo-fascists” hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it based on warped religious interpretation and indoctrination. Nor does it begin in 1979, when those mean Iranian revolutionaries took Americans hostage – an account I once heard Ann Coulter spoon-feed to her adoring Tucson fans. Painful as it is to consider, what if there is in our history some legitimate basis for the terrorism now directed against the US and other western powers? Do we have the courage to at least ask? Could we try looking at the global effects of post-WWII US policies -- outside the paradigm of “American interests”? Is the very thought of American malfeasance too absurd, “senseless,” or irrelevant to seriously consider? Some would say yes, believing that the motivation for waging the current war is no more complicated or less noble than that of WWII, the so-called “good war” fought 60 years ago. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has recently surpassed the number of days we fought in WWII, while our leaders tell us to get used to the idea of waging a perpetual war to secure a perpetual peace. Does that approach sound sensible? And in spite of all the talk about “the world changing after 9/11,” haven’t we been here before? So I have a proposal. On this the 5th anniversary of 9/11, how about we resist the Pavlovian nationalist platitudes for a change, and instead transcend our shock, grief and anger to the point where we can 1) honestly examine what part if any US policies play in breeding such hate and violence against us, and 2) begin engaging in democratic dialogue and coalition-building to determine what kind of community (national and world) we want to promote. Let’s show the world we’re not afraid of looking at our past (and present) transgressions, or of putting our own affairs in order, or of walking our talk. And let’s rediscover how much we all really have in common as Americans united for fundamental change. I suspect that the longer we deny and delay this messy-but-necessary process, the longer all this goes on. Senseless. (PS: To my state legislators: thanks for the flag.) Eric Johnsen
Friends of Chip Several friends of Chip have taken exception to the fact that I mentioned that he was becoming a lobbyist. Their point is that he's going to a "Public Affairs Firm" and that lobbying is going to be an extremely small percentage of his duties. First let me congratulate Chip on his new position. I'm a lobbyist and I think it's a great job. But let me say that Arizona law makes no distinction how much or well you lobby. Michael Preston Greene and I are lobbyists just like Randy Johnson and my son are pitchers. If you lobby on behalf of a client--even once--you are a lobbyist. Welcome aboard Chip.
August 29, 2006 Chip Scutari is Leaving the Republic to become a Lobbyist! Sources confirm that Republic political writer Chip Scutari is leaving the Republic to work with David Leibowitz at the public relations firm of Moses Anshell.
I've been pointing out dishonest signs for the last month or so. Here's the most deceptive sign of them all. The current District 9 Legislative Team is Murphy, Stump and Burns and they are indeed running as a team. Fraley is challenging Murphy and Stump for a House seat and instead of playing it straight, his campaign has put up signs that simply include "Fraley" in the "Trusted Leadership Team." After he pulled a stunt like that, I don't know how much I would trust Mr. Fraley's leadership. But his resume gets even more interesting. There's a David Fraley from Peoria on Myspace--and he's got some really hot friends. I wonder if they helped him put up the signs? Actually, he'd make a ton of money if they just held a carwash for him. I don't know if David's wife found out about his "friends," but she's apparently pretty ticked about something. What with that Order of Protection and all. The media is supposed to pay attention to guys like Fraley so they don't sneak past the voters. Fraley ran for the House in 2002 as well and the Republic did what the mainstream media does best. They thoroughly examined his credentials, character and views...and then endorsed him.
For the two House seats, we recommend GOP voters
back the incumbent, Rep. Phil Hanson, and newcomer David Fraley, who is
active in Community Legal Services and is manager of a Harkins movie
theater.
Dang right he's "active in Community Legal Services," and he must have met those hot babes at the movies. Chicks dig guys who can get them free popcorn. He ran again in 2004 and he's running again now. Here's what the Republic said this time
Just as in 2004, this year there's a third GOP
candidate. David Fraley, who is making his second legislative run, is
involved in Community Legal Services and says he lives off his real
estate investments. He has twice failed in Peoria City Council bids.
Fraley's chance for an upset against the incumbents is decidedly uphill,
compounded by his low-key persona and the growing perception of a
perennial candidate in search of an elective office. His best bet in
this election would be to separate himself clearly from the two
incumbents as a more moderate, independent thinker, but he just
doesn't make the case as the challenger.
His best bet is to separate himself? That's funny. I guess Fraley didn't take that advice. Remember your "team": Fraley, Stump and Burns. Update: Jim Small from AZ Cap Times emailed to say that while Murphy, Stump and Burns support each other informally, they are not actually running as a team. Flying Under Radar.
Another great trick we see every even numbered year is the Stealth Initiative. There always seems to be an initiative that has apple pie in the title and rat poison in the language. This year, I think award for stealth language goes t the minimum wage initiative. Proposition 202, as the measure will be known, proposes a state minimum of $6.75 that is adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index. In Arizona, the measure is supported by a coalition of labor, community and faith groups as well as Gov. Janet Napolitano. Supporters claim that Prop 202 has a limited scope...but folks tell me that it's scope looks more like this.
Here's a letter in response to the post.
Good Morning,
I think you
should read
this initiative for yourself.
Alot of what
you're saying isn't exactly right. For example: Small Business are
EXCLUDED. Civil suits must be filed within 2 years of the violation.
The
"Commission" refers to the Industrial Commission of Arizona or such
other agency designated by the Governor.
Only the
Commission or a law enforcement officer can inspect & copy payroll
and/or business records. Note: employers should never have employee
healthcare records.
I think
Section 4 means this initiative does not pertain to illegal immigrants.
Have a
wonderful day, and please do not use my name.
My source for the original post ran it by two
attorneys who agreed that what the initiative does and what the
supporters say it does are different. The attorneys concluded
that the points above are what it actually does. I'll see if I can
get more detail.
Here's a letter responding to that letter. The writer makes an excellent argument that Prop 202 applies to everyone. The media needs to pay attention to this one.
Greg, Prop. 202 (Minimum Wage) proponents want people to think that small businesses are exempt from this initiative, but the way it’s drafted, they aren’t. The initiative defines “small business” as a business that earns “less than $500,000 in gross annual revenue AND that is exempt from having to pay a minimum wage under Section 206(a) of Title 29 of the United States code.” (Emphasis added.) Is “AND” a drafting error? Did they mean “OR”? It doesn’t matter what they meant, “AND” is the term used and because initiatives are voter-protected, the legislature can’t clean up the language. So, it looks to me like the exemptions to Prop. 202 only apply to home workers in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, or employees who work in American Samoa, seamen on American vessels, or agriculture workers. Proposition 202 is very poorly written. Section 206(a) says: (a) Employees engaged in commerce; home workers in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands; employees in American Samoa; seamen on American vessels; agricultural employees Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates: (1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than $4.25 an hour during the period ending on September 30, 1996, not less than $4.75 an hour during the year beginning on October 1, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997; (2) if such employee is a home worker in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, not less than the minimum piece rate prescribed by regulation or order; or, if no such minimum piece rate is in effect, any piece rate adopted by such employer which shall yield, to the proportion or class of employees prescribed by regulation or order, not less than the applicable minimum hourly wage rate. Such minimum piece rates or employer piece rates shall be commensurate with, and shall be paid in lieu of, the minimum hourly wage rate applicable under the provisions of this section. The Administrator, or his authorized representative, shall have power to make such regulations or orders as are necessary or appropriate to carry out any of the provisions of this paragraph, including the power without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to define any operation or occupation which is performed by such home work employees in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands; to establish minimum piece rates for any operation or occupation so defined; to prescribe the method and procedure for ascertaining and promulgating minimum piece rates; to prescribe standards for employer piece rates, including the proportion or class of employees who shall receive not less than the minimum hourly wage rate; to define the term “home worker”; and to prescribe the conditions under which employers, agents, contractors, and subcontractors shall cause goods to be produced by home workers; (3) if such employee is employed in American Samoa, in lieu of the rate or rates provided by this subsection or subsection (b) of this section, not less than the applicable rate established by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with recommendations of a special industry committee or committees which he shall appoint pursuant to sections 205 and 208 of this title. The minimum wage rate thus established shall not exceed the rate prescribed in paragraph (1) of this subsection; (4) if such employee is employed as a seaman on an American vessel, not less than the rate which will provide to the employee, for the period covered by the wage payment, wages equal to compensation at the hourly rate prescribed by paragraph (1) of this subsection for all hours during such period when he was actually on duty (including periods aboard ship when the employee was on watch or was, at the direction of a superior officer, performing work or standing by, but not including off-duty periods which are provided pursuant to the employment agreement); or (5) if such employee is employed in agriculture, not less than the minimum wage rate in effect under paragraph (1) after December 31, 1977.
August 28, 2006
Core Sample Folks have been asking me about the dramatic poll results in the CD 8 race. As you will recall, the Kenski poll had Gabrielle Giffords with 45 percent to Patty Weiss' 27 percent And on the Republican side, Randy Graf had 36 percent to Steve Huffman 13 percent and Mike Hellon 10 percent. Those are surprisingly large margins. What gives? I think this line from the poll provides a clue. The poll, which targeted Democrats and Republicans who voted in the 2002 and 2004 primary elections, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. (emphasis mine) The sample is comprised of people who voted in BOTH the 2002 and 2004 primaries. These are the über voters; the core of the base. These hard core voters are likely to be very knowledgeable about the candidates and they are likely to represent the extremes of each party. They know Giffords and many of them have voted for her in the past. My guess is that they aren't going to be overawed by Weiss's TV persona. On the Republican side, the core of the base is likely to be hard core conservatives who would walk over broken glass to support Graf. The universe of people who show up on election day will be much more broad. It seems to me that Kenski should have sampled folks who voted in EITHER of the last two Primaries. I think the sample over estimates Giffords' and Graf's support and the results will be much closer on elections day. I still think Graf wins by double digits, but I wouldn't count Patty out.
Hook and Dredge Here's a classic trick that the authors of the Political Insider use when they want to slam someone--usually a conservative Republican--but they don't have any fresh ammo. They manage to bring up old stories using a technique that I call the hook and dredge. It goes something like this. Law and Order Republican Senator Jones may be due for another run in with the law. Insiders will recall that in 2002 Sen. Jones wound up on the wrong end of a photo radar camera. Jones had better watch his speed. While we were cutting through the Senate parking lot on the way to a bad tuna sandwich at the DES cafeteria, the insider noticed that the tags on Senator Jones' car are about to expire. He had better hustle down to DMV...but don't drive too fast. Yes, that's hilarious. By the time the reader is done, he doesn't noticed that the story is almost all rehash with a lame hook to allow it to be reprinted. Here's a real life example courtesy of Chip Scutari in Sunday's Insider
OK, class, let's review the saga of former Rep.
David Burnell Smith. He was the first lawmaker in the nation tossed from
office for violating a public campaign-funding system. He has to
pay $44,000 in fines for his snafus, but he's running for public office
again. Maybe the sixth time will be the charm.
Anyway, Smith is having a fund-raiser in Cave Creek today with two high-powered brokers of the state GOP as the headliners: Speaker Weiers (whose name was spelled wrong on the invitation) and Mesa Rep. Russell Pearce. Apparently, there's still some love in the GOP ranks for Smith. We love how the fund-raiser notice says "RE-ELECT." Ah, wouldn't that make Mr. Smith an incumbent? Not. The first part is the dredge. Scutari brings up a bunch of old stories about Smith. None of which are current, or have anything to do with the rest of the story. Did you notice the hook? Smith has a typo in his fundraising invitation and he uses "RE-ELECT." The typo doesn't even deserve a response. Here's Chip's take on RE-ELECT. Ah, wouldn't that make Mr. Smith an incumbent? Not. Chip has clearly seen Wayne's World too many times. But is he right? I've been critical of candidates who use "KEEP" or "RE-ELECT" for offices that they don't hold or weren't elected to. But is it OK for Smith to use RE-ELECT? Absolutely! David Burnell Smith was elected to the House in 2004. He was removed and is now seeking once again to be elected. Scutari's assertion that the words RE-ELECT would make Mr. Smith an incumbent is false on its face. Nancy Barto is the incumbent. However, she wasn't elected. She can use "KEEP," but she can't use "RE-ELECT". Smith can't use "KEEP" but "RE-ELECT" is completely appropriate. During the last election, he was elected to this seat and he's running for it again. He's urging voters to RE-ELECT him. Not that the insider cares. The typo and "RE-ELECT" are merely hooks that allow Scutari to dredge up the "saga" of Rep. David Burnell Smith.
For Sale On Friday, Jim Pederson contributed another $2.5 million to his "grassroots" Senate campaign, bringing the total to $8.3 million. Pederson was originally going to limit his personal contributions by agreeing to match individual contributions. He even bragged about spending 5 hours a day on the phone raising money. I guess those calls haven't been going as well as expected. Still no word in the Republic about Pederson's latest contribution, but at least we know that David Burnell Smith has a typo in the invitation to his fundraiser.
Barnes Storming I just received this letter. What's up with Ray Barnes in LD7. Elected with David Smith, served with Nancy Barto, then decides to run as a team with Howard Sprague? A former Dem who still doesn't have his Clean Elections money yet... What's the political calculus that says "forget the two incumbents, each with personal fortunes they are willing to spend. I think I'll take my broke ass and team with a complete nobody with even less money...!" He runs traditional for the first time, when he should have run clean and gotten tons of matching money... Then he spends it on everything BUT voter contact. Cruises, $800 cell phones, etc. Is it arrogance? Did he just assume he wouldn't have a race? I don't get it... And like 98% of his money is PACs or lobbyists, so where does he go now for more money? Name Withheld.
August 26, 2006
Agenda Journalism 101 When you finish reading an article do you ever realize that you have picked up a strong opinion on the story? Naturally, it's not supposed to be that way. Reporters are supposed to provide neutral and balanced presentations of the facts, not write front page editorials. Matthew Benson and Chip Scutari have an A1 story in Saturday's Republic about the Republican Gubernatorial candidates' position on taxes, and it clearly falls into the subliminal editorial style. Don't take my word for it. Just read the headline writer's analysis. Tried and true issue - tax cuts - trotted out once more by GOP The reporters don't write the headline--another Republic employee writes it. This guy doesn't have an axe to grind against the reporter. They all work for the same newspaper and the headline writer is a professional who reads the story and tries to give the reader an idea what the story is about. In this case, the headline writer clearly thought the story is about the tired old tax cut ploy that GOP candidates "trot out" around election time. I think he's right. I think the headline accurately reflects the story. One of the themes of the story is that these tax cut ploys don't really have popular support. They've been tried before and failed, but Republican candidates keep dredging them up or trotting them out. That theme is pervasive throughout the story, but it's most obvious--and most clearly wrong here: In 2000, a citizens group
pushed a ballot measure that would have eliminated the income tax over
four years and required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and public
approval to replace the money. The reporters imply that the proposition didn't "make the ballot" for lack of support. However, this Republic article from September 2000 shows what really happened to Prop 107. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an initiative to abolish the state income tax is unconstitutional, but kept three other propositions on the Nov. 7 ballot. That's right. The initiative had the requisite signatures but the Supreme Court removed it from the ballot on a technicality. There is no evidence that the measure was "roundly panned by Arizona leaders." Sure the usual gaggle of city lobbyists and state funcionaries proclaimed that the sky was falling, but there's no indication that the measure was "roundly panned." In fact the opponents needed someone high profile to oppose the initiative and eventually recruited Jerry Colangelo. Despite the reporters' unsubstantiated implications that Prop 107 didn't have popular support, that's not what opponents were saying at the time. The demise of Proposition 107
brought a collective sigh of relief from city and state officials. If you read the article and concluded that the GOP candidates were trotting out the same tired ideas that Republicans have been trotting out for years, you would be wrong. But you couldn't be faulted. That's what you were supposed to think.
August 25, 2006 Pop Quiz Did you ever skip a class and then learn that there was a surprise quiz that was worth a huge chunk of your grade? That nightmare just happened to Steve Huffman. I mentioned last Friday that Huffman missed the Oro Valley Forum even though it was well attended and included participation from all the major candidates. But there's a nasty twist---The Washington Post was there. It appears that the reporter wanted to write a positive piece on Steve, or at least give him a chance to shine. ORO VALLEY, Ariz. -- When 11-term Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) announced his retirement, he bestowed his endorsement on soft-spoken state Rep. Steve Huffman. But the article went south...literally. But when the long-simmering issue of illegal immigration boiled over this year, Huffman lost his favored status in the Sept. 12 Republican primary in the 8th Congressional District and was gasping to keep up with anti-immigration firebrands in his party -- and even with some in the other. Without Huffman as a source, the reporter was forced to go this direction. "A vote for Steve Huffman is a vote for the politics of Jim Kolbe. There may have been a time when those politics were valid -- not anymore," said local conservative radio host Charles Heller. Graf was there and he had a chance to get in this body blow. "There is a frustration among the base, and that's why we're going to be successful in this primary," Graf said. "Conservative Republicans in this district have not had a reason to go to the polls to vote for a congressman for quite some time because this congressman has not represented them." Don't get me wrong. The story wouldn't have been all wine and roses if Huffman had attended the forum, but it wouldn't have been the catastrophe it was. Steve would have gotten in a few good quotes about protecting the border and his pro business credentials and not conceding the district to the right wing....yada yada. It's not fair that Huffman's missing the event turned into such a fiasco. He couldn't have known that the national media would be there. But that's why you attend EVERY major forum. It's why you always go to class. It's why kids who want to go to a good college always do their homework. Because, like my mom always said, life's not fair.
Trust Me. I'm a Journalist. Arizona 8th points out an AP article that came out before the recent polls. Former state legislator Gabrielle Giffords has emerged as the Democrat to beat, while the Republican race is much tighter, with state Rep. Steve Huffman holding no clear-cut lead over contenders Randy Graf, a former state legislator, and Mike Hellon, a former state GOP chairman. Huffman holding no clear-cut lead? Give me a break. The Kenski poll indicates that Graf has a double digit lead over Huffman and Hellon's COMBINED totals. Now that we know how wrong the quote is, we realize that the reporter is just spouting conventional wisdom without any proof. Bloggers don't post that way. We are in a low-trust environment. So, for example, I've been saying that I thought Weiss was ahead. But I made it clear that it was my opinion and that it was based on 30 years of TV versus Giffords' Senate experience. I also brought in Schweikert and Hayworth in 1994 as a similar example. My analysis may have been wrong. But it was clear that it was my analysis. What did the AP guy do? He just quoted what everyone thinks and called it a fact. After all, he's with the Associated Press...he must be right.
Here's an interesting Letter.
Mr. Patterson,
If you had better access to the Tucson area TV stations, maybe you wouldn't be as surprised about Giffords strong lead over Weiss. So far, the Weiss campaign commercials only appear on channel 9, her home channel. Her platform is basically based on vote for me, I'll stand up to bush. Also, I believe she isn't able to overcome the baggage of being seen as a liberal newscaster for a liberal TV station, that generally ignores south east AZ outside of the immediate Tucson area. Finally, other than her news encourage, she has no community visibility. So far, with the exception of the accuracy of some of her advertisements, Giffords has lead a clean, polished campaign with relatively broad appeal. You also have to remember that Giffords made it to the state house based on voters from the rural/semi-rural parts of south east AZ as much as anything and this is where her base is. The polling numbers for Graf vs. Huffman are no big surprise. Huffman has three handicaps he has to overcome if he wants to win the primary. One, he is the choice of Kolbe; Two, he is a realtor; Three he is from Tucson. Despite all Kolbe did for this area (and he did a great job of representing us) his stance on illegal immigration is unforgivable. Realtors, and developers are not fondly thought of here, they have a huge negative perception. Finally, we'd rather trust a Golf Pro
from Green Valley, than anybody from Tucson. The issue with Huffman's
former treasure doesn't do him any good, assuming it gets reasonable
coverage by the press.
August 23, 2006 Poll Shocker--Giffords leads Weiss Tucson Weekly is reporting these numbers in the Kenski Poll. Gabrielle Giffords: 45 percent Randy Graf: 36 percent Wow. I have long assumed---and often stated--that Weiss' TV experience would trump Giffords legislative experience. Those numbers shock me. We'll see if they hold up. I'm surprised by the Graf margin. I've said from the beginning that Graf would win, but I assumed that Hellon and Huffman were splitting the moderates. Now we know that Graf has a double-digit lead over their combined total. I think that Kenski is the best polster in Arizona and it looks like this methodology is sound. She polled people who voted in each of the the last two primaries. That's a great sample.
That which is not denied...is deemed admitted. Here's an update to the HellOnToni fiasco that I reported on yesterday. The first point shouldn't be a surprise. Bill Arnold has resigned as Huffman's Treasurer. But this one's a bit of a shocker. Howie Fischer interviewed Huffman's camp and the article includes this quote. Huffman campaign manager Dave Stuempfle would not say whether he or Huffman were previously aware of the situation or answer any other questions related to the matter. Hmm, lack of denial looks to me like an admission. UPDATE: I received a report that Huffman has publicly denied knowledge of the site. Also, Toni Hellon made this statement in Explorer News. "Hellon admits that it makes little sense that Huffman or any of his supporters would have anything to do with the Web site because the trespassing and harassment continued long after the time when Huffman left the state senate race to run for Congress."
"So Called" Bias Chip Scutari provides a classic example of a reporters bias slipping into a story. Along with illegal immigration, gay politics stands front and center during this election season. The so-called Protect Marriage Arizona constitutional amendment, which Munsil authored, would ban same-sex marriages and bar recognition of relationships similar to marriage, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. The "so-called" Protect Marriage Arizona constitutional amendment...? Hmm, I don't recall reading about the "so called" Clean Elections amendment.
"So Called" Bias II Here's a "quick hit" from the Republic's Linda Valdez Conservatives like charter schools to be free of undue regulation. So why does the right wing want a so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" to shove government's big thumb into college classrooms? It's based on a crybaby assertion that liberal professors bully conservative students. In 2005, 72 percent of higher-ed teachers said they were liberal, but that doesn't mean they preach in class. The fact that these highly educated people lean left it is an impressive endorsement of liberal ideas, though. (emphasis original) I emailed a copy of the Academic Bill of Rights to Ms. Valdez and asked her with which ones she disagreed. (I've printed a few of the rights below.) Here's her response I disagree with the premise
that it is necessary. It aims to fix something I agree that using the government to fix things that aren't broken is a liberal trick. However, her cavalier dismissal of allegations of bullying as "crybaby assertions" is shockingly insensitive. American history provides scores of examples of individuals who have been forced to defend themselves from the harsh treatment of those who oppose their ideas, dislike the color of their skin or disagree with their religious beliefs. Unfortunately American history provides even more examples of those who tell these victims to "get over it," "suck it up" and "it's just the way things are." Asserting that young men and women who make allegations of bullying are "crybabies," and opposing statutes that would protect the free exchange of ideas indicates the side of history with which Ms. Valdez will be associated. That's--a very un-liberal thing to do.
Here's a sample of the "so called" rights that Ms. Valdez considers unnecessary.
1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs. 2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. 3. Students will be graded solely on
the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the
subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political
or religious beliefs.
5. Exposing students to the spectrum of
significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses
is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses
for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious
indoctrination.
7. An environment conducive to the civil
exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the
obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature
or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
Picking up a Sister Wife Yesterday, I mentioned that the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner and will have a very difficult time distinguishing homosexual marriage from polygamy, and the logical conclusion from recent opinions is that both are constitutionally protected. Here's an interesting case involving cohabitation. If the judge is right, do you think that it's possible to keep polygamy illegal? A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional. State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law. That ruling showed that "the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.
August 22, 2006 Meltdown in the Old Pueblo Sen. Toni Hellon Alleges that Huffman's Treasurer is behind the HellOnToni website. Files Injunction Sues for Trespass and Invasion of Privacy On April 26th, I pointed out the website HellOnToni.com. I concluded that the site crosses the line between legitimate political discourse and stalking. The site contains pictures looking into the windows of Hellon's house. The pictures are obviously taken by someone who is on Hellon's property. Frankly, I assumed that some right wing nut job who was unhappy with Hellon's moderate leanings was behind the site. However, Senator Hellon released this bombshell on Monday. Last week, it was confirmed that the chief subject of this investigation is Tucson political activist, Bill Arnold (William G. Arnold). Because I am fearful for my personal safety and privacy, and that of my family, I immediately filed an Injunction Against Harassment, against Mr. Arnold which was granted by Justice of the Peace Carmen Dolny of the Pima County Justice Courts this morning. FEC reports state that William G. Arnold is Steve Huffman's Treasurer.
HUFFMAN FOR CONGRESS Treasurer Name: WILLIAM G ARNOLD JR Huffman was planning to run against Toni Hellon before Jim Kolbe announced that he wasn't seeking re-election. Huffman is now running against Toni's ex husband Mike Hellon. Here's more of Sen. Hellon's statement. In addition, given the significant amount of my time and the personal anguish that this has caused both me and my family, I filed a lawsuit for trespass and invasion of privacy against Mr. Arnold and Mr. Clodfelter, who we have been advised is acting in concert with Mr. Arnold. The complaint was filed this morning in Pima County Superior Court and seeks injunctive relief and damages against them. While I am deeply saddened by all of this, I know that only legal action will ensure an end to this. I will not allow anyone to intimidate me or jeopardize the personal safety of me or my family. When people learn about incidents like this, they wonder why anyone would run for public office. I believe it is necessary to take a stand against these outrageous lies and this abuse so that it does not discourage good people from participating in the democratic process..
Post Script The website claims that the original idea for the site came from this Chip Scutari article that appeared on February 5th of 2006.
TUCSON SENATOR DEFENDS CAMPAIGN FUNDS SPENT ON HOME OFFICE - The latest round of campaign-finance reports out last week contained very few surprises, mainly because so few candidates have any money to speak of at this time of year.
But Republican Sen.
Toni Hellon, who eschews public financing and raises campaign cash the
old-fashioned way, stood out with some of her off-election year
expenditures.
August 21, 2006 Tin Ear Jim Pederson's millionaire ad isn't going over well. It has been mocked without mercy on talk radio; folks who email me have universally panned it, and it seems to have been removed from the rotation.
Jim, buddy, isn't it obvious that class warfare tactics only work if you are not in the evil class? You can't make an us-versus-them argument while proclaiming that you are part of the "them" class. When you are making a class warfare argument, the only guy worse than the guy who helps the fat cat is, well, the fat cat. The commercials actually work fine when they are separate. The public will accept a millionaire who brags about being a successful, self-made man. Some members of the public will even fall for the tired old arguments that Republicans only favor the rich guys who don't pay their fair share. But putting both messages in the same commercial is like mixing tuna and ice cream. No one falls for the "Republicans only favor the rich--self-made millionaires like me--fat cats who don't pay their fair share" commercial. And what about that tax cut? The public intuitively knows that Pederson didn't go to H&R Block to get that tax cut. They know that he can afford one of the fancy downtown accounting firms that regular folks drive by on their way to their upper deck seats at a Diamondbacks game. At least when Pederson decided that he was going to emphasize conservation, he sold his Lincoln Navigator and bought a hybrid. He somehow knew that he couldn't engage in conspicuous consumption and advocate conservation at the same time Too bad he didn't figure out that you can't advocate class warfare and brag about being a millionaire in the same commercial.
An Obvious fact, Rarely Admitted Here's a refreshing moment of candor from the Star. When Randy Graf ran against retiring incumbent Rep. Jim Kolbe in 2004, he was framed as an extremist who supported the then-controversial Proposition 200, which cut public services to illegal immigrants and required identification to vote. But in two short years, immigration has gone from being almost totally off the national radar to being one of the most highlighted issues. And as for Proposition 200, well, it turns out Graf was actually in the mainstream. The measure passed by 55 percent of the vote.
Reaping that which is Sown.
Calling their lives blessed, more than a dozen children and young adults from polygamist families in Utah spoke at a rally Saturday, calling for a change in state laws and the right to live the life and religion they choose. She won't have to worry for long. The Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner and will have a very difficult time distinguishing homosexual marriage from polygamy, and the logical conclusion from recent opinions is that both are constitutionally protected. Here's Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans. Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous "orientation," have been "singled out" by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status; and that treatment can only be changed by achieving amendment of the state constitutions. The Court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional, and that polygamy must be permitted in these States on a state legislated, or perhaps even local option, basis--unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals. Once the Supreme Court decided that the zone of privacy allows adults to make their most intimate decisions without any constitutionally legitimate government interference, it is difficult to see how a law that prohibits a married couple from adding an additional spouse can be legitimately prohibited. After all, we wouldn't want to "legislate morality" would we? Soon schools will not only feature Heather has Two Mommies, but also will have the sequel--Heather has Two Mommies and a Daddy.
August 19, 2006
I'll be on Channel 12's Sunday Square Off this Sunday. The show starts at about 8:05. Mike Newcome, Richard Reulas and I will discuss Cheney's visit to the valley, campaign signs, Hogwash and little league. Sparks ensue. Don't miss it.
Where are the Waldos? I was at a house party for Republican candidates last week. Rep. Nancy Barto, Dean Martin, Bill Montgomery and Sean Noble for Len Munsil regaled a crowd of 14 people for nearly two hours. That's a successful event folks. That's retail politics--fourteen voters, decaf coffee and a couple plates of excellent cookies. Knowing the efforts that candidates put into organizing and attending events with a dozen or so people will give you an appreciation for an opportunity like the Oro Valley Candidate Forum pictured below.
Here's a list of candidates who
participated: Frank Antenori Randy Graf Mike Hellon Mike Jenkins
David Nolan Alex Rodriguez Bill Johnson Patty Weiss Barry Hess Don
Goldwater Mike Harris Len Munsil Gary Tupper Bill Montgomery Dean Martin
Toni Hellon Al Melvin Pete Hershberger David Jorgenson Lisa Lovallo
Carol Somers.
Here's the debate among the District 8 Congressional candidates.
Where are Huffman and Giffords? This is Huffman's home turf. It's in his Legislative district and it's about 15 minutes from his house. Don't tell me that he was at a more important event. When an event has this many voters, there are no more important events. Absentee Voting Speaking of Steve, Jim Nintzel has been talking to Pima County Recorder Ann Rodriguez and he makes this point. Which candidates are delivering the most early-ballot requests this year? Rodriguez says it's Gabby Giffords and Patty Weiss on the Democratic side, and Mike Hellon, with a smattering of Randy Graf, on the GOP side. She hadn't seen anything from Republican Steve Huffman yet--which is kinda odd, given that Huffman has led the fundraising race among the GOP candidates. What's he waiting for? Is he saving all that money for the general election? Because he might not make it that far.
We know that Huffman is on the air. But I'm afraid that the flashlight picture is going to begin to resemble Dukakis in the tank.
(On a personal note. Steve is the only candidate in the race whom I know personally. I've met Graf and Hellon, but only once and that was many years ago. I've actually worked with Steve and I really like him. I think he was a good Legislator. So I don't want to look like I'm picking on him, I just don't understand why he's not attending candidate forums and why he doesn't seem to have an early voter program.)
Paton Place II I pointed out how Jonathon Paton's deployment to Iraq is making national news but the Republic embarrassed itself by burying the story. Well, Paton just made Time Magazine. When politicians usually travel to Iraq, they go on "fact-finding missions" and are photographed shaking hands with U.S. troops. Arizona Rep. Jonathan Paton is going to fight. The 35-year-old is a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserves and a freshman Republican state representative for District 30, which extends from parts of Tucson to the Arizona-Mexico border. Paton, who is not married but has a girlfriend, will leave for Iraq at the beginning of September and will return in mid- to late-January. While he is in the war zone, he will miss the primary election on Sept. 12, the general election on Nov. 7 and — if he wins — the first few weeks of the legislative session
August 16, 2006 Full Disclosure The Arizona Republic has a picture of a guy in a chicken suit protesting Vice President Cheney's recent visit. You have to admire the guy's honesty.
Steve Huffman has a new ad. His message seems to be "Conservative but not crazy." Huffman points out that Graf had a picture of President Bush in his legislative office and Graf turned it upside down. Like that's going to be a problem in the Republican Primary? Graf probably gains 5 points from that little factoid.
And the Band Played On...
I think I'm hearing an instrumental version of Nearer my God to Thee over at the Pederson Campaign. Arizona Congressional Watch is reporting that: Rumor sent via email: “Pederson fired his whole field staff. THE WHOLE STAFF. This is a sinking ship!” Tipster believes that new director wants more emphasis on TV, less on volunteers. Update: Pederson spokesman says this is “absolutely untrue”, notes that the DSCC is investing heavily in the race and they wouldn’t do that for a “sinking ship”. Of course the rumor is being denied. "Everything is fine, we just scraped the ice burg, please go back to your cabins." The fact that this rumor could even exist is a sign of a sinking campaign. The rumor is only viable because Pederson is on his third campaign manager, he's been forced to self finance a race he promised not to buy and despite his millions, he's actually slipping in the polls.
August 15, 2006 Allen Town I pointed out last week that District 8 Senator Carolyn Allen claimed in the District 8 Clean Elections debate that she had been endorsed by Speaker Weiers. Yes. It would be a great coup, and Allen claimed it on camera in front of the clean elections crowd as well as in one of her mail pieces...however, it's not true. The Speaker has made no such endorsement. In the debate, Allen also claims that Mesa Senator Karen Johnson has endorsed her. This claim is false as well. I called Senator Johnson and she said that she agreed to stay neutral. She received reports during the Legislative Session that Allen was claiming Johnson's endorsement and Johnson asked her to stop making the claim. The Clean Elections debate in which Allen again claims Johnson's endorsement occurred on July 18th--well after the end of the Session and well after Johnson told Allen to stop making the claim. The local media, of course, know that these events occurred, but they haven't printed it. Allen's closing comments in the debate are a must see. Here's the link to the debate. It's over an hour long and Allen's comments are last, so drag the progress bar to the far right and then back it up a bit. You will catch Rosati close and then Allen close. Folks have asked me why Allen scares everyone. It's a good question. The answer is a matter of temperament and power. The first one is poor and the second is massive. Allen is the former House Majority Leader, she currently Chairs the Senate Health Committee and her position in the Senate Caucus gives her tremendous influence. Allen is not physically imposing, but she's like that mean 5th grade teacher who still gives you nightmares. I think her closing remarks in the Debate offer some insight. For example, when she claims Speaker Weiers' endorsement, she stops, looks at Rosati and says..."He didn't endorse you." That's just mean. She's pointing out that Weiers serves with Rosati but chose to endorse Allen. The point is even more bizarre now that we know it's not true.
The Art of War Interest groups send out legislative surveys so that they can inform their members which legislators support them. Candidates get dozens of questionnaires from groups such as Planned Parenthood, the NRA, CAP and the Farm Bureau. But I've never seen a state agency try this trick. It's website points out that "The Arizona Commission on the Arts is an agency of Arizona State Government." And if you want to know how your legislator stands on arts funding, you can see the results of their questionnaire here. Needless to say I think this type of publicly-funded campaign activity is inappropriate. Update: Someone has pointed out that the AZ Commission on the Arts didn't sponsor the survey, they are merely directing the reader to a survey that was conducted by "Arizona Action for the Arts." I don't see much difference. A state agency is hosting information that an advocacy group uses to influence the vote. Would it be OK for the DES website to have a link so you could see if your legislator cares for children and then link to the Children's Action Alliance. Of course not. And my guess is the the Arts Commission will claim that they have no affiliation with the Arts Action group. But using their website to link to the Action group IS affiliation.
Everybody loves to Recycle I'm getting a bunch of reports indicating that the reason Carpenter's signs say "Re-elect" is that he hasn't qualified for his Clean Elections money and he is re-using old signs. I've had a bunch of people email and ask me about the appropriateness of a Clean candidate using last year's signs. Is it an in kind contribution? Is it even legal? I'm not just picking on Carpenter here. There are a lot of Clean candidates who have old signs up. Does that give them an unfair advantage? David Burnell Smith was kicked out of the Legislature because of allegations that he overspent by $6,000. What if a candidate spends all of her clean elections money on literature and then re-uses thousands of dollars worth of signs that were purchased with clean money in the last election?
August 14, 2006
A Really Bad Sign
Here's a particularly egregious example of a manipulative sign. Rep. Ted Carpenter and Rep Pamela Gorman are running against each other for the Senate seat being vacated by Dean Martin. Carpenter is using "Re-Elect" on his signs and writes "State Legislature" at the bottom. He must consider himself an aspiring lawyer or used car salesman and conclude that since he is in the Legislature that it's OK to run for a different office within the Legislature and say "Re-Elect." Carpenter is running for the Senate, he is not in the Senate and he is running against a Legislator who has the exact same elected status that he has. Carpenter's people probably think it's cute and technically correct since he is in the Legislature and he didn't write Senate. But the sign misrepresents his status. He is not seeking "Re-Election." I don't debate used car salesmen. I walk away. No matter how many times Bill Clinton wags his finger, I'm not going to debate the meaning of "is" with him. This sign raises a bunch of questions: Do you want a State Senator who has this threshold for honesty? Do you want a guy who will do something that is this blatantly manipulative and then will argue with you that he is technically correct? What is he going to do on budget bills, Tax Legislation or constituent service? Can he keep his word at the capitol? Will other legislators work with someone who has this level of honesty? When Carpenter sends me a letter to inform me that his signs are technically accurate, you will have your answers.
Casting Reporters Before Swine Here's the funniest thing that I have read this year. Reporter Howie Fischer is writing about Prop 204 and wants to tour the Farmer John Pig Farm in Snowflake. Opponents of Prop 204--undoubtably envisioning Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle--don't want him to tour the facility and had to come up with a reason...and they picked a doozy. Capitol Media Services was not allowed to visit the facility and see the animals in the pens that would be outlawed. Campaign consultant Ian Calkins, whose firm crafted the ads, said allowing reporters into the plant would create safety issues, as they could bring in diseases. That's awesome. They don't want reporters to mingle with the pigs, because the reporters might spread diseases that would make the pigs sick. I have thought the same thing for many years, but I've never had the guts to say it. (That's why I've always thought that reporters shouldn't be allowed to own dogs either.)
Great Minds Think Alike...Especially Near Deadline I pointed out Friday that the District 14 legislative candidates are using KEEP in there signs, even though Chad Campbell isn't in the Legislature. Here's what the Political Insider said about it on Sunday (last entry). Keep Democrats . . . So says the campaign sign for
a trio of legislative candidates, but the Insider wonders, "Keep them
where?"
Letters, we got letters I've received a lot of letters about the District 14 post. Here's a letter from a Democrat in the District who doesn't see why it matters. Greg I see the insider
took your blog about Dist 14 dems sign about word for Democrats have been emailing me all weekend to say that the sign should read "KEEP Democrats Your Legislative Team." They claim that this is accurate since the current team is made up of Democrats. My response is that there is one Republican running for the House in District 14, and there are two Democrats--Campbell and Carpenter plus Meza. Saying KEEP Democrats Your Legislative Team and then adding Campbell but excluding Carpenter isn't fair. Even if you believe the alternate reading of the sign, McCune-Davis and Meza have lent their names to a ruse to make Campbell appear to be an incumbent. The trickery is even more blatant if the sign is read in the more logical way. From top to bottom, the sign reads: KEEP DEMOCRATS Debbie- McCune Davis Robert Meza Chad Campbell Your Legislative Team Fellow Democrat Carpenter has the right to be pretty ticked off.
Paton Place On August 4th, I pointed out that the story of Republican Legislator Jonathon Paton being sent to Iraq made national--indeed international--news, but was buried by the Republic. I guess a legislator is without honor in his own land. The story contains good news about a local Republican, looks favorably on the legislature, caries a hint of patriotism and makes Arizonans proud. While the New York times, LA Times, CNN and Fox thought it was a great story...the Republic chose to bury it. The Republic partially redeemed itself Sunday with a prominent story in the Valley and State Section.
Battle of the Titans Speaking of Prop 204. I mentioned that Stan Barnes is running the "Vote No" (Hogwash) campaign. I've confirmed that Jay Heiler is running the "Vote Yes" campaign. Heiler is very talented, well connected and highly effective; he starts with an advantage in the polls and probably has a higher overall budget. This is going to be a really interesting race to watch.
Real Friends I mentioned Friday that Steve Huffman was endorsed by the Tucson Weekly but that he wasn't likely to use any of the quotes in a brochure. Huffman has also been endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce and I'm sure that this is more along the line of what he was hoping for. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed state Rep. Steve Huffman in the race to fill a congressional seat being vacated by retiring Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe. Huffman, a Tucson Republican, has strong relations with the business community and has pushed for business tax cuts during his time at the Arizona Legislature. Huffman also has fans at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and other business groups. "I am extremely proud to receive the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsement," said Huffman. "I have worked closely with local chambers of commerce throughout Southern Arizona to enact groundbreaking legislation that led to tremendous economic growth for our state."
August 12, 2006 With Friends Like These... The Liberal Tucson Weekly has endorsed Steve Huffman in the District 8 CD Race. They appear to be serious, but I don't think that Steve will be re-printing any of their comments on a brochure. Ouch. But we think that whatever conservative poses he adopts in the primary, Huffman is a political realist who has never been all that good at sucking up to the GOP's right wing. Huffman understands that sometimes taxes have to be raised. Witness, for example, how he led the way to support Pima County's decision to hike the sales tax for transportation earlier this year. Huffman hasn't been one of those Republicans who shows a pandering interest in border issues. He's been much more interested in tax policy than sponsoring legislation to address the influx of illegal aliens in Arizona. And true to his business-friendly background, he hasn't pushed to punish companies that hire undocumented workers. Huffman has supported abortion rights. In his 2004 legislative campaign, he was endorsed by Planned Parenthood, an organization that gave him a perfect score on its 2005 scorecard. Even the gay-rights organization Human Rights Fund said Huffman stood by them half of the time. And, hey, he's got the Jim Kolbe seal of approval, as well as backing from the GOP establishment--the Clicks, the Diamonds, the usual suspects. Bottom line: Steve Huffman is the Tucson Weekly's kind of Republican--a country-club moderate. Just the message that Steve wants to get out in the Republican Primary: A country-club Republican moderate who understands that sometimes taxes have to be raised and is supported by Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Fund. That's the political equivalent of a clean head shot. Coming in the form of an endorsement it has to be classified as friendly fire.
Whose Team? I've been pointing out examples of candidates who are using "KEEP" to refer to offices that they don't hold. Amanda Aguirre and Meg Burton Cahill have signs that say "KEEP" and "State Senate" even though they are not in the State Senate. I think that's clearly misleading. In fact, in the District 24 race, Russ Jones is in the House along with Amanda Aguirre, so they could theoretically both use KEEP and State Senate. Here's an even more bizarre example.
The current District 14 "team" consists of Senator Bill Brotherton and Reps. Debbie McCune-Davis and Robert Meza. Brotherton is not seeking re-election and McCune Davis is in a race to replace him. It's fine to have "KEEP" McCune-Davis and Meza as part of the Legislative team. After all, they are in the Legislature. If it said "KEEP" McCune-Davis State Senate, that would be a problem. But it doesn't say that. But who is Chad Campbell? He's not part of the current Legislative team. His name has been printed on a separate piece of paper and pasted onto the sign--presumably over a spot that used to read "Sen. Bill Brotherton." There are five candidates running for McCune-Davis' vacant House seat: Democrats Patrick Bray, Chad Campbell, John Carpenter, Robert Johnson and Republican John Stevens. (Meza is running and technically faces all of the above challengers, but is presumed to be safe.) If McCune-Davis and Meza want to endorse Campbell, so be it. If they want to run as a team, so be it. But when they imply that these three are the incumbents and that you should "keep your Legislative Team" they have crossed an ethical line. BTW: You will notice that the sign doesn't say "Paid for by..." since it's an old sign with a new snipe, my guess is that it was, at least in part, "Paid for by Bill Brotherton" and not Chad Campbell. There ought to be a law that says candidates have to disclose these things...oh, never mind, I guess there already is. Update: I received this email this morning. Greg
2 factual corrections
to your post:
The Secretary of State's website
indicates Bray and Johnson have withdrawn and are not on the ballot,
so the only house candidates are Meza, Campbell, and Carpenter
There is no legal requirement for
disclosure of candidate signs; only for initiative or ballot measure
signs, or 3rd party endorsement signs
Bill Scheel
Legislative Campaign Director
Arizona Democratic Party
Update: But what about Rosati? Folks are pointing out that Rosati is using "Re-elect". That's clearly inappropriate. I had an appointment in north Scottsdale last night and I took surface streets in an effort to find a "Re-elect Rosati" sign. I drove from Thomas and Scottsdale Road north past Frank Lloyd Wright and then down Tatum on the return trip. I passed dozens of Rosati signs, "A Proven Record", "Conservative" I eventually found one sign that had Re-elect and the "Re" was once covered with a sticker that had come loose in the rain. By then it was too dark to get a picture. I don't know how big a deal it is when I could only find one sign in a 25 mile round trip.
August 10, 2006 The First Rule of Holes: When you are in one...Stop digging! Gabby Giffords has managed to turn a local one day story into a national one week story in her attempt to stand by her fraudulent "blocked" ad. Gabby's camp is conceding that the "late night vote" that she blocked wasn't a "vote" and it wasn't, well, "late at night." In fact, it was still daylight. But she still claims that the rest of the ad is accurate. That's hilarious...and she's becoming a laughingstock. Check out the ad. The ENTIRE THEME is that the event took place at night. The first word is "nighttime." Gabby turns on a light and talks about how she was there on that late night to block a key vote. The chirping crickets give the impression that it's very late. We now know that the event wasn't at night, wasn't a vote and that she was absent during the actual vote later that week. We also know that the reason that the Senate was empty on the offending evening is that the Democratic caucus was at Cheuvront's restaurant celebrating his birthday.
The story has now gone national and was featured in today's Washington times. Gabby on the
lam | ||||
