Here's how Clean Elections describes the pamphlet.  "The Candidate Statement Pamphlet is a non partisan, plain-language handbook published by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, an independent state agency, to give you information about state elections."

If a candidate is ever going to get a fair shake, it's in the Pamphlet.

In the Governor's race there is only room on the page for three candidates.  So far, so good.  After all, we have two major candidates plus Libertarian Barry Hess vying for Governor. 

My second observation is an important point about write in candidates.  It's pretty technical, so bear with me.  There are a bunch of write in candidates in the Elections Guide.  So someone could argue that Munsil wasn't singled out.  But that's not the case. 

All of the other write in candidates could indeed qualify for the General Election Ballot because they were running for an OPEN seat in their party.  They were NOT running against a candidate who had ballot status in the Primary. 

For example.  Take a look at the District 5 House race.  "D-Rod" is the write in candidate and he's in the Phamplet.  But there are two spots for Democrats on the General Election ballot.  If D-Rod gets a few hundred write in votes, he will earn a spot on the General Election ballot. 

The same is true for the Libertarian write in candidates.  In order to qualify for the Libertarian spot on the General election ballot, they only need a handful of write in signatures.  The don't have to actually defeat anyone in the primary, because they are running for a spot without another candidate of the same party. 

That's a hard point to understand.  If there is no Libertarian running for, say, the State Senate in District 5, then a write in candidate can become the Libertarian nominee and earn general election ballot status by simply getting a handful of signatures.  But if the Libertarian is competing against another Libertarian, the write in candidate has no chance. 

The only exception in the entire pamphlet is Steve Moore--the candidate who bumped Munsil to the back page.  In order to qualify for a spot on the General Election Ballot, Moore would have had to defeat all of the other Republican candidates and it was clear on election night that he did not do so. 

Tom Smith, a former Republican lawmaker and chairman of the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission, said the group never reviewed inscriptions on the monument since planning for the project four years ago.

I served in the House with Tom Smith.  He grew up on a farm during the depression and joined the Marines at 17.  At boot camp he realized that being a Marine meant that he could have two pairs of shoes, sleep in until 4:30 and get an occasional Sunday off.  At that point he decided to make it a career. 

He was injured so badly in Korea that the Marine Corps notified his parents that he had been killed.  He recovered and finished two tours of duty in Viet Nam.  After 24 years, he retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. 

He became a teacher and eventually had a full career as a principal.  He retired again and then served 12 years in the Legislature. 

One day when we were on the floor of the House, he was in an especially good mood.  I asked him what was up.  He said. "I turned 70 today." I said "wow, that's great, what are you planning to do today"  He said, "Well, I got up at 4:30, ran 4.5 miles on the canal, came home and had liver and onions for breakfast.  That's a good start."

I have reviewed the power point presentation that was presented to the Capitol Mall Commission which Tom Smith chairs.  There are examples of phrases that are on the memorial, but none of the offensive phrases are on the power point display. 

Colonel Smith reviewed the memorial on Thursday.  I haven't heard his reaction.  But my guess is that it's not going to be good. 

But what about the Polls?

Greg

I went to the Arizona 9/11 Memorial as I said I would. In fact I went three days in a row for over an hour each time, taking pictures, making notes, visiting the other Memorials, etc. The anti-war, anti-American phrases jumped out at me, but more than that, the entire Memorial is a monument to political correctness.  The words are trite, often inane, saying nothing. They trivialize what happened on 9/11 to the point no one would ever know anything happened at all if they weren’t already aware.

Phrases such as: ‘Scottsdale Students Founded Cultural Understanding Organization" -- "Patriot Square Rally "Standing With Muslims Against Terrorism"---"Grace of Phoenix Made Kids Giggle Again"---"Remembrance Garden Planted In Winslow"---"Arizona Interfaith Movement Promotes Understanding & Respect"----People of Yuma Planted Trees," stink of political correctness.

I believe the Commission members led by Billy Shields must have joined hands and sang 'Kum Baa Yah' before each meeting. The Westernmost panel displays the words, "8:30 PM President Addresses Nation" but says nothing at all about his stirring words. Below that are the words, "10 29 04 Terrorist Organization Leader Addresses American People" That’s like putting the words, Emperor Hirohito of Japan Addressed the American People," on a Pearl Harbor Memorial.

The World Trade Center isn’t named, only WTC. There is no listing of fatalities. There is no accounting for who did the deed. The Memorial shrinks entirely from saying Americans were killed in a sneak, terrorist attack, and certainly doesn’t even hint at who did it. All we can say is "Patriot Square Rally "Standing With Muslims Against Terrorism" (I wonder how many Muslims attended)

There is nothing about what the President said in his very stirring 8:30 PM address to the Nation. There is nothing about patriotism. There is nothing about how we were proud and resolute and flying the American Flag. There is nothing but politically correct, feel good, inane, trite bullshit. Please don’t let this subject drop below the radar. My letter writing campaign now begins. Thank you so very much for being the "Paul Revere" in this matter. (What kind of coffee did you say you drank? I need to get me a cup or two).

PHOENIX The state Democratic Party's chairman has acknowledged the party gave 100-thousand dollars to an independent expenditure group that in turn paid for a Web site critical of Republican gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil.

A Democratic Party spokesman on September 18th had denied the party had any involvement with two groups linked to the Web site, but party Chairman David Waid now says the spokesman spoke in error and hadn't known of the donation to the Arizona Values Coalition.

There is no reference to Uruzgan civilians being bombed.  The 9/11 Commission report makes no reference to the phrase "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles."

Another Satisfied Customer

Dan Riehl and Ace report on the educational curriculum being offered by the Arizona 9/11 memorial organization. It includes lessons like this:

Describe how key political, social, environmental, and economic events of the late 20th century and early 21st century (e.g., Watergate, OPEC/oil crisis, Central American wars/Iran-Contra, End of Cold War, first Gulf War, September 11) affected, and continue to affect, the United States.

Fox News covered the controversy this afternoon. Here's Brian Wilson's interview with Arizona state rep. Russell Pearce.

Five years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, we must remain as vigilant as ever against those who would exploit jihadi acts of war and mass murder as opportunities to erect literal Guilt Complexes on American soil. They tried it at Ground Zero. They tried it at Shanksville. They succeeded in Arizona.

Maria Salenger:
It was a wonderful event. The Arizona interfaith movement had representatives from many different religions there. I think there were eight to 10 people that spoke and each of them gave a prayer, a blessing, and a song for the space.
 

Matthew Salenger:
I think the most important thing that they did was really -- they were calling for peace. And all the memorial, the most important thing I think about the memorial is that we need to remember, you know, the events of 9/11 because of where it's brought us today. And it's important to understand those pieces. It's led us into war and it's important to understand if there were misleadings into that based on 9/11. We need to remember those things. And they brought all that up and brought up peace.

Last Friday, the Governor was on KJZZ's "Here and Now" and was asked about the memorial.  She practically gushed about how great it was and then she received a question from a caller who mentioned the espresso pundit article and pointed out that the memorial includes statements that are critical of the United States.  I've transcribed the exchange.  (Len Munsil has a copy of the audio on his website.  Take a minute and listen to the governor's enthusiasm.)

KJZZ Host:   Last week Arizona unveiled its 9/11 memorial How do you think it turned out?.

Gov. Napolitano:   Oh, it’s great, I invite people to come out to the capitol it’s actually a very interesting design.  There’s actually a piece of the World trade center inside it.  There are phrases and comments and things that were said either leading up to 9/11, on 9/11 or immediately thereafter.  The Commission that raised the money and did it which was chaired by Billy Shields who is a fire fighter here, did a great job.   

Host:  Bill from Gilbert is joining us on line with a question about the 9/11 memorial.  Good morning Bill, thanks for joining us.    

Bill:  Good morning governor, this morning on espressopundit.com, I read a disturbing article about the 9/11 memorial at Wesley Bolin Plaza.  Apparently it includes some criticisms of the United States such as references to the Gulf of Tonkin incident back during the Viet Nam War as well as a reference to an accidental bombing by the US Air force of an Afghan wedding party.  My question for you since your administration approved this memorial is, how did those critical references of the United States get into a memorial to 9/11 victims?

Among other things, our high school students are expected to “explain the roots of terrorism,” including “background and motives” and “economic and political inequities and cultural insensitivities.”

Seventh-graders have a segment on “tolerance, unity and diversity” where the goal of the class is to “recognize both the unity and diversity of their class” while discussing how “some people had angry feelings about people who came from different parts of the world … they were intolerant.”

I think when terrorists kill thousands of innocent Americans it is OK to have “angry feelings” – especially when you watch video of people celebrating in the streets. That anger was largely not directed at just anyone from another country, but was quite appropriately directed at the terrorists and those who cheered them on.

A Liberal Awakens

Nearly a year ago (in response to a Bob Robb column)  I pointed out how clean elections was allowing Conservatives to defeat moderates. 

How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Clean Elections.

In a pre-clean elections environment, a Republican candidate had to be able to appeal to the party faithful at district meetings as well as the business community at Chamber/lobbyist meetings. 

A candidate who had little support from the local Party workers couldn't get the core votes or logistical support that it took to get elected.  Meanwhile, the candidate who didn't appeal to the chamber crowd had to finance his own campaign and ended up stenciling his signs on plywood.

Sure, the occasional RINO would get through the process, but as a general rule, a candidate had to appeal to both groups to get elected. 

Since a precinct committeeman can get you as many $5 contributions as a CEO or an A-Team lobbyist, Clean Elections has removed the chamber crowd from the equation.  Without the moderating influence of the "business community," candidates tend to reflect the values of the hard-core party workers. 

Now Tucson Weekly Columnist Jim Nintzel provides his take on Clean Elections.

The Skinny has been a-rantin' and a-ravin' for some time about the unintended consequences of Clean Elections--namely, that handing out public dollars for political campaigns is enabling social conservatives to take out moderates in GOP primaries, with the end result being that the Legislature is lurching further to the right.

Two years ago, it was a handful of mods up in Maricopa County that got taken out in the primary. Now the revolution has reached Tucson, with Republican Al Melvin taking out incumbent Sen. Toni Hellon, and David Jorgenson beating moderates in the Republican primary for the open House seat up in Legislative District 26.

Melvin soundly defeated Hellon, a longtime party activist, by 13 percentage points. Part of the reason: Hellon ran a lousy campaign and appeared scatterbrained when she was defending her record at debates.

But the fact remains that Melvin wouldn't even have been in the race if it hadn't been for Clean Elections. Let's leave aside the curious contradiction that conservatives who believe in fewer welfare handouts and smaller government are eagerly lining up at the trough if it means money for them. Instead, let's concentrate on the long-term impact of Clean Elections.

Of course, if the real goal is to affect elections not issues then the current structure, leadership, secrecy and timing of Project for Arizona's Future makes a lot of sense. 

If the real goal is to affect the election, I sure hope that none of the money they are collecting is from corporations or unions.  What with that being a felony and all. 

The sign is referring to this event.

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (CNN) -- At least 20 people were killed and more than 60 injured in Afghanistan when a U.S. plane dropped a bomb on a wedding party as celebrants fired into the air, an Afghan defense spokesman said Monday.

I thought the memorial was to pay tribute to the victims of 9/11, not score cheap political points about collateral damage in Afghanistan. 

Here's another example. 

Then the last date dawned on me.  My gosh, it's the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin in August of 1964.  Why is that significant?  Because it's the fictionalized event that Lyndon Johnson used as an excuse to trick Congress into supporting the Vietnam War.  You know...just like this time. 

The left is desperate to compare Iraq to Vietnam, but do they really want to trivialize 9/11 by comparing it to Tonkin?  That's the implied message.  Johnson was a liar; Vietnam was a quagmire.  Bush...well, you fill in the rest.

Carol Kamin has retired her position at Director of he Children's Action Alliance and moved to Boston, (France must be too far)  but she couldn't help flipping the bird at Arizona as she left. 

Here's Bob Rob's take on it, followed by Craig Cantoni

• Carol Kamin, founder of the Children's Action Alliance, is leaving town for Boston. She has been an energetic and capable advocate, and is moving to be closer to her family. Good luck to her.

In leaving, however, she couldn't resist one last swipe at Arizona. In the Kids Count study, published by the Anne E. Casey Foundation and which serves as the alliance's bible, Arizona ranks 37th in children's well-being while Massachusetts ranks 10th. So, saith Kamin: "I want to live somewhere where they are nice to children."

In reality, there's little statistical difference between the high-ranked and low-ranked states on the factors Kids Count measures. What it really shows is a remarkable degree of homogeneity among the states regardless of the polic

ies pursued by their governments.

Perhaps the most reliable indicator of which places are the most family-friendly is where parents actually choose to raise their kids.

Since 1990, the number of children under the age of 18 in Massachusetts has increased just 7 percent. In Arizona, the number of children has gone up by 60 percent.

In fact, although Arizona has a smaller overall population than Massachusetts, it actually now has more kids.

Massachusetts has a smaller percentage of its population under the age of 18 than the national average. Arizona has a greater percentage of kids than the national average.
 

Here's Craig's take on her departure.

Craig J. Cantoni sent me these comments about a Kamin send off article that was in the Republic

The 130 column-inch story sang the praises of Bland’s idol and fellow leftist, Carol Kamin, who is retiring as the head of the local Children’s Action Alliance and moving back to her hometown of Boston.   

I once debated Kamin’s second in command at a public forum.  When we were asked what we would do to improve the Arizona economy, Kamin’s lieutenant responded, “I’d unionize everybody and raise the minimum wage to $12.”

That statement is a perfect illustration of how the Alliance embraces polices that seriously harm the economy and children.  Yet the Alliance and Kamin have been praised repeatedly by the Republic, which doesn’t run 130 column-inch stories praising Arizona organizations and people that have actually helped the economy and children by advocating low taxes, limited government, personal responsibility and economic opportunity.  As with most big-city newspapers across the land, the Republic prefers to honor collectivists, redistributionists and statists, especially if they claim to care about children.     

Birds of a feather chirp nonsense together.

Speaking of chirping nonsense, here is what “reporter” Bland wrote about Kamin returning to Boston:  “Kamin wants to live in a bustling city.  She wants to be near her family.  And, she says lightly, ‘I want to live somewhere where they are nice to children.’” 

The article repeated a constant theme of the Republic:  that red-state Arizona sucks compared to blue states like Mass.

Let’s do something that Bland and her editors don’t do:  Let’s look at facts instead of opinions to see how Phoenix and Boston actually compare.

Keep in mind while reading the facts below that Boston had a head start of a couple hundred years over Phoenix, which isn’t on a bay or navigable river; which never had the economic engines of fishing, textiles and manufacturing; which is located in an out-of-the-way part of the country; and which doesn’t have great private universities funded by a legacy of industrial benefactors and wealthy Brahmin bluebloods. 

- Phoenix’s population is 2.3 times larger than Boston’s.  Since 2004, Phoenix’s population has grown 10 percent while Boston’s has decreased 5.1 percent.  Apparently, people would rather live in a city that isn’t nice to children.

- Based on 2000 Census data, the median household income in Phoenix was $41,207, versus $39,629 in Boston.  Apparently, Boston has squandered its huge head start and industrial wealth

- Boston seems to have squandered its wealth on government.  It has 50 percent more full-time city employees than Phoenix, although Phoenix’s population is 2.3 times larger.  No wonder big-government advocates Bland and Kamin think Boston is utopia.

-  In spite of its spending, Boston isn’t a safer place to raise children.  In 2005, it had 61 murders per 100,000 population, versus Phoenix’s 15.3.  It had 45.7 rapes per 100,000 population, versus Phoenix’s 45.7.  And it had 705.9 assaults per 100,000 population, versus Phoenix’s 382.3.  (Source:  www.city-data.com)

- Nor does Boston seem very family friendly.  About one-third of its population is married, versus about one-half of Phoenix’s population, although the two cities have about the same median age.

- Phoenix has a much higher percent of Hispanics than Boston (34.1 percent versus 14.4 percent).  On the other hand, Boston has a higher percent of immigrants from Asia (6.2 percent versus a negligible percent for Phoenix), and a higher percent of immigrants from Europe (4.5 percent versus a negligible percent for Phoenix).  Thus, Phoenix has a higher proportion of the racial/ethnic group with the highest dropout rate and lowest academic scores.  Yet even with this demographic handicap, 76.6 percent of Phoenicians have a high school degree or higher, versus 78.9 percent of Bostonians.

In summary, you won’t get such facts from reading Bland’s bland gruel, but you will get intellectual indigestion.

September 18, 2006

It's Immigration, Stupid.

U.S. News came to Tucson to interview the District 8 candidates and they only had one thing on their mind... and it's not the economy, healthcare or Iraq. 

Graf, however, tapped right into the frustration that's very alive in the Eighth District, which includes about 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border and runs up to the some prosperous suburbs near Tucson. "Down here," Graf he says, "illegal immigrants are killing cows, trashing people's ranches, and putting families near violent criminals, and Congress hasn't done anything about it." He also hopes his desire to slash bloated spending will spark Arizona's famed mile-wide independent streak.

Giffords would like to change the subject, but the magazine would have none of it. 

Giffords emphasized healthcare and education in her primary, but as a Fulbright scholar who studied in Mexico in the early 1990s, she's credible on immigration and plans a push for more sanctions for illegal-alien employers and reform that includes a guest-worker program.

Sure, she's going to push for sanctions and a guest worker program.  But what did she do when she was in the legislature?

Giffords voted against even allowing Arizona voters to vote on a law permitting courts to deny bail to accused sex offenders.  (SCR  1011, 2002 Session). 

Giffords voted against a bill to prohibit public funding of illegal immigrant day labor centers.  This was also signed by Napolitano.  (HB 2592, 2005 Session).

Giffords voted against a bill to deny certain public benefits to illegals, in keeping with the requirements of Proposition 200.  (HB 2030, 2005 Session).

Giffords voted against allowing voters to decide if English should be Arizona’s official language (HCR 2030, 2005 Session).

Giffords voted against a bill to allow local law enforcement to assist with enforcement of federal immigration law (SB 1306, 2005 Session).

Giffords voted against a bill to bar governments from accepting the illegal immigrant martricula consular card as valid identification (SB 1511, 2005 Session).

Giffords voted against a bill to allow Arizona voters to decide if courts should be able to deny bail to illegal aliens accused of serious felonies.  (HCR 2028, 2005 Session). 

And if the subject ever changes from immigration, Graf might get a chance to mention this. 

Giffords voted against a law to prevent sex offenders from living next door to schools.  (SB 1202, 2002 Session).

That's an extreme pro illegal immigration record. 

No wonder Gabby wants to discuss health care and education.  She's been voting like she represents Mexico.  She might be able to get away with it if immigration was AN issue in the race, but not when it's THE issue in the race. 

Just read U.S. News. 

Len Munsil's Blog is Getting a lot of Attention.

Here's Sunday's Tribune.

Arizona political candidates should follow the lead of Republican Len Munsil and start writing personal campaign blogs filled with wit, personal charm and strong comparisons on the issues with their opponents.

Munsil posts almost every day for the home page of his campaign Web site, www.lenmunsil.com, giving us direct insight into his thoughts and motivations about running for governor. His writing was quite serious in the days leading up to last week’s primary victory. But he’s had plenty of lighter moments as well.

Here's what Bob Robb said about it on Sunday

Munsil certainly has the personal skills and talents to mount a credible challenge. He is an attorney by training, knowledgeable about the issues, and personally quite amiable with an understated sense of humor. His personality comes through on the highly readable and surprisingly candid blog he has been writing throughout the campaign.

Munsil used today's post to challenge Napolitano to a blog off. 

Since you claim you are too busy governing the state (is the legislature back in session?) to debate me, maybe we can have a blog-off. You won't even have to leave the Rose Garden ... I mean, the 9th floor.

Gas Prices are Falling

I pointed out last week that the Republic ran a series of stories about how consumers are being ripped off by gas that is warm when it's sold. 

Hmm, Now that gasoline prices have plummeted, I haven't seen any front page stories about big oil's efforts to lower gas prices.

The title of my post was "These Go to Eleven" in an homage to Spinal Tap and a reference to the fundamental lack of economic sense demonstrated by the Republic.  I saw this license plate and couldn't resist taking a picture. 

September 16, 2006

Here are a couple good letters about the Primary

Greg

You are correct about Clean Elections; it does greatly benefit conservative republicans in the legislature who do not get the financial support from the business community that moderates get.  Not so in state wide races. 

I don’t think it is ever going to be undone, although political activists will keep trying.  I would like to see some modifications to it.  The amount provided in primaries and general elections is too low – especially statewide races.  Also, matching of traditional funds should be 80% to make up for the cost of raising the funds and traditional candidates should receive matching funds for independent campaign committee spending against them as do clean election candidates. The individual contribution amount that can be given to a traditional candidate needs to be at least doubled. Matt’s loss in 2002 was more due to independent expenditures on behalf of Governor Janet that were unmatched to Matt, but independent expenditures against Janet were matched.

Graf would have won if Hellon was not in the race.  No way could Huffman have made up 6 points out of a 12 point Hellon vote.  Assuming 2 points goes to the other two candidates, Huffman would had to have gotten 80% of the remaining – not likely. Bottom line is Huffman ran a terrible campaign and deserved to lose.  Think about it, he was given unlimited funding and could not put together a winning team. His problem is he has never made an effort to reach out to the party and makes friends and develop a following.  Everything was bought and paid for by his campaign.  Not true of Graf’s campaign.  He had a ton of volunteers all over the district.

I think Toni’s margin of loss can be attributed to her lack of effort in her campaign.  She did not even put out signs.  Also, the mantra that she and Pete have both used successfully in their prior campaigns – it is us against the state of Maricopa is getting old.  You cannot continue to support Janet year after year without voters getting the idea that you are opposing your own party. 

Finally, interesting take on Allen.  It will be interesting to see if your prediction is correct.  That was about as negative a race as I have seen. Allen was supported by her legislative district officers.  Having the support of your district leadership is a huge help in a primary.  Look for changes in the district makeup, I think this was a tough race for Donna and Mike Reagan and they might want to take a breather.

Randall Pullen

Here's another

Greg, why do you assume all of the votes Mike Hellon received would have gone to Steve Huffman?  I, like you, have worked with Steve on campaigns before, and I have worked with Mike also.  I don't like candidates who put ambition over integrity, and even if I agreed with Steve on his border stance, etc, I would have voted for someone else in this race.  Mike Hellon had the experience and depth, honesty and integrity I was seeking in a candidate.  I will have no problem supporting Randy now, nor will many previous Kolbe supporters.  Jim increasingly lost touch with the district and his endorsement of Steve only fired up the DNC to spend lots of dinero to beat Huffman.  I don't think they needed to - Huffman defeated himself.  He ran a nasty campaign, as he has before, and was ungracious in defeat.  Maybe he's the one who should move to a different state, not Mike.  It was Mike who spent part of a Republican Women's forum chastising the negative campaigning of Huffman against mutual opponent Graf.

Of course, all the district 26 folks who did vote for Steve would certainly not vote for Toni, so there you have it.  Interesting times ahead... 

 
 Name withheld upon request.

September 15, 2006

Blood in the Water.

The guys at Sonoran Alliance have noticed something interesting regarding Pima County Supervisor Ann Day.

The State Senator from her County District (almost a twin of LD 26) is now Al Melvin. Ann recently voted to continue to allow pornography in the public libraries. Now there is a losing issue in an area where the social conservative just got organized.

Of course, there is no Clean Elections funding for County races.  That's been my point all along.  Ann Day is safe because her challenger will be unfunded. 

Don't think that Toni Hellon lost because her district has become more conservative.  While that may be part of the reason--together with some baggage from her ex husband's race and the remodeling/website controversy--the necessary component of her loss was the $56,000 that Melvin got from Clean Elections.

Those checks transform the core of the Conservative base from a group of people complaining about the Trilateral Commission into a well funded, cohesive, organized, grass roots fighting unit. 

March of Folly

Did you notice that Mike Hellon got fewer votes in a Congressional District than Toni Hellon got in a losing effort in a much smaller legislative district?

Spoiling for a Fight.

I have pointed out several times that Mike Hellon will forever be known as a spoiler.  Here's a great example from the Washington post's David Broder

But out in Arizona, the power of another issue -- immigration -- was displayed when Randy Graf, an outspoken advocate of closing the border, won a close victory over party-endorsed moderate state Rep. Steve Huffman, for the Republican nomination to succeed retiring Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe. The Kolbe-backed Huffman might have won, except that another moderate candidate took 12 percent of the vote -- twice Graf's margin. The district now becomes even more of a pickup target for the Democrats.

Kolbe's Tantrum

Kolbe has had a great run, but he's not ending it well.  His endorsement of Huffman was ineffective--with some pundits speculating that it actually hurt Huffman.  Now Kolbe is refusing to endorse Graf.  His next step is to hold his breath until he turns blue and lock himself in his room.  He's in danger of losing his TV privileges and having his allowance reduced. 

It's Going to Get Nasty

I always chuckle when someone claims that their opponent is engaging in negative campaigning by simply mentioning their record.  If you voted for a publicly funded stadium, raised taxes or supported driver's licenses for illegal aliens, you can expect you opponent to mention it.  That's not negative campaigning and it's not a hit piece.

This is a hit piece.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent this mocked up picture of Steve Huffman to CD 8 voters in an effort to convince folks that Steve was a chickening out by missing critical votes on immigration. 

Here are the votes that are listed in the piece.

Indeed, they are critical votes.  They would deny bail for certain undocumented immigrants, require proof of citizenship for voting, eliminate some welfare benefits for illegals, and prevent taxpayer funding for Day Labor centers. 

Yes, they are critical issues that the district cares about, Gabby Giffords was out of the Senate for the 2006 votes, but she voted on the other issues that the National Democrats considered critical...she voted NO on all of them. 

There will an effort to portray Graf has extreme, but how about Gabby's record on immigration.  On the issues that the national Democrats considered critical, Gabby has taken the extreme pro illegal immigrant position. 

But I'm sure we will see a nasty picture of Graf in a chicken suit before it's over. 

September 13, 2006

The Power of a Single Shot II

Take a look a the House race in LD 26.  Hershberger and Jorgenson are complete opposites on the political spectrum.  Hershberger is the most moderate House Republican and Jorgenson was recruited by the former director of AZ Right to Life.  That shows the power of a single shot campaign.  Each candidate's base made an effort to vote only for that candidate.  The more centrist Lovallo and Somers would have won if they had been everyone's second choice.  But the base didn't make a second choice. 

Hellon a Hand basket

It was a bad night for the Hellons.  Mike and Toni were crushed; there's just no other way to spin it.  She lost her Senate seat by 10 points and his miserable showing will forever brand him as a spoiler.  

Mike is without excuse.  We all knew that if he stayed in the race Huffman had no chance.  Here's what I wrote about the race last May 24th. 

Randy Graf must be the luckiest man alive…

In the same week in which Patty Weiss does her Jerry Brown imitation, Mike Hellon decides that he’s going to play chicken with a freight train. 

Hellon is way behind in the money race and Kolbe’s endorsement of Huffman effectively ends Hellon’s campaign.  His exit from the race is inevitable, but the longer he waits, the more he drains resources and momentum from Huffman.  Republicans are starting to think the unthinkable…what happens if he commits the political equivalent of self-immolation and stays in the race?  Actually, everyone knows what will happen.  Graf will beat them both.  The question is, where will Hellon have to move?  My guess is Utah or Idaho.  Because if he doesn't drop out, come November he won’t be able to walk through a Costco in Tucson without little children pointing at him and saying “Mommie, there’s the spoiler.”

Endangered Species Act

Toni Hellon provides another example of how Clean Elections is purging the moderates from the Republican Party.  Melvin would have been a footnote without the $56k in public money. 

Ironically, conservatives still generally oppose clean elections while moderates and Democrats still support it.  It's a great example of unintended consequences. 

Don't think it will end here. We know that Clean elections is wiping out moderate incumbents--before clean elections, incumbents almost never lost primaries.  What do you think is going to happen in open seats?

Have you considered the effect on the bench--baseball, not judicial.  Will there be any moderates who have come up through the ranks and are ready to run for statewide office or Congress?

Some Surprises

I'm not surprised that Jack Harper won.  He wasn't even on my watch list.  But I'm surprised at how badly he crushed Whalen.  I guess the Republic doesn't have the Sun City penetration that it used to.

I thought Gorman would win, but not by 2-1.  Wow. 

Slade Mead got thumped.  You will recall that he was a Democrat who re-registered as a Republican and then ran as a conservative against Lori Daniels.  He spent 2 years voting as a Democrat and was defeated by Huppenthal.  Then he re-re-registered as a Democrat and ran for Superintendent of Public instruction and lost in yesterday's Primary.  Frankly, it speaks well of the Democratic electorate that they didn't fall for this crap. 

Rum Romanism and Rebellion author Ted Prezelski only managed to get 10% of the vote and came in 4th.  I guess the new media thing only goes so far. 

I'm surprised at the strength of Carolyn Allen's victory.   I have a prediction:  she won't finish her term.  She and O'Halleran will be the only two moderates in a 20 member Republican caucus.  Without Hellon for comfort, she isn't going to be interested in staying around.

Adult Supervision?  Wanna Bet?

Howie Fischer admitted last Friday that he and Republic Reporter Chip Scutari had a lunch bet on the Republican Primary and I pointed out on Saturday that betting on elections is illegal.

I must have jogged his memory, because Howie wrote a story in Tuesday's Tribune and Star in which he warns people not to bet on elections.  Talk about hypocrisy.  Like people aren't going to make the connection?  Aren't there grown ups at the paper who stop things like this from happening?

So you think you know who will win today's election? Don't bet on it. It could get you into trouble.

A little known law makes it a crime to even offer to wager on the outcome of an election. Violators could end up serving up to four months in county jail and paying a $750 fine.

Napolitano loses Veto Case 5-0

Nowicki has full coverage here.

On June 19th I predicted that the Gov. would lose the veto case 5-0.  

At the time, conservatives were complaining that Justice Bales had decided not to recuse himself from the veto case.  Here's the last half my June 19th post. 

If Justice Bales says he can rule impartially, I think we should take him at his word. 

But it doesn't matter.   Republicans are going to win the veto case 5-0.

I’m not an attorney.  Don’t take financial advice from your barber and don’t take legal advice from me.  But let’s look at this case politically.   That’s a task for which I am qualified.  

Arizona Governors enjoy the power of the line item veto.  That means that they can take an appropriation item and scratch it out.  That’s one reason that Arizona doesn’t have earmarks.  Particularly egregious spending projects--like earmarking $17 million to buy Jomax road at the 303--can be excised from a budget bill. 

The veto case arose when governor Napolitano scratched out a policy provision of a bill and claimed that she had the right to do so because implementing it affected state spending. 

It’s not going to stand.

The Justices could have punted—given Napolitano a victory and not ruled on the merits of the case—by declaring that the Legislature didn’t have standing.  This is what they did in the last veto case that was before the court.  However, they accepted this case. 

They have another opportunity to punt.  They can hear arguments and then declare that the issue is a political question.   That would be a bad move.  If they were looking for a way to avoid ruling on the merits, they had a better opportunity with the issue of standing.  It would be foolish to rule that the Legislature has standing and then avoid the merits by ruling that the case is political.  So they will rule on the merits. 

While the issue is not a political question in the legal sense, it is totally political in its implications. 

If this stands, it will be a massive power shift from the Legislative branch to the Executive Branch.  EVERY policy decision has some effect on state spending.  Legislation is the art of compromise.  Bills have provisions that reflect the interests and concerns of a wide group of Legislators.  Bills often only pass because they contain provisions that are balanced by other provisions.  Granting the Governor the ability to excise policy provision out of bills would allow future Governors the ability to unwind those compromises and allow portions of the bills to go into law.

Can you imagine that power in the hands of Fife Symington?   Can you imagine Fife sitting with my friends Chuck Coughlin and Jay Heiler going through bills and eliminating some policy clauses while letting the remainder of the bill stand?  If gives me goose bumps. 

The Justices can imagine that.  Moderates would have no place at the table.   Democrats would have no place in the room.  If the Governor has the authority to single handedly amend legislation by lining out policy compromises, the Legislative process as we know it would cease to exist. 

The shift is too massive; Napolitano is going to lose. 

Too bad.  Democrats aren’t going to control the Governor's office forever and I can think of no single initiative that would benefit Conservatives more than giving the governor the ability to single handedly make policy changes.

I opposed the Independent Redistricting Commission before I realized how much it would benefit Republicans.  (Suburban growth eliminates urban and rural legislative districts and creates Republican districts out of Democratic ones.  Legacy power maintained by Legislative Democrats allowed them to soften this transition, however the Independent Commission is no respecter of incumbents and ruthlessly eliminated urban and rural districts in favor of suburban ones.  When I served in the House there were 33 Republicans, now there are 39.)

I opposed Clean Elections as well.  Yet equalizing the funding dramatically increases the viability of Conservatives who no longer have to go hat in hand to the Chamber crowd.  With equal money, a passionate core of supporters tips the balance; passionate moderate is an oxymoron. 

The Legislature is more Republican because of the Independent Redistricting Commission and more Conservative because of Clean Elections.  Thank you Jim Pederson and Kevin Ann Wiley. 

So, if we are lucky, Governor Napolitano’s naked power grab will stand.  Because eventually, there will come a time when the natural order of things is restored and a Republican will sit on the 9^th floor.

But alas, it is not to be.  The Justices understand politics and they understand power.  Napolitano is going to lose 5-0.

For the full post, click here.

September 12, 2006

The Power of a Single Shot.

I don't know how many times I've received an email or phone call that goes something like this..."My district has an open seat and I get to vote for two State Representatives.   I have one candidate that I really like, but I don't know either of the other guys.  Do you know anything about Smith or Jones?"

I tell them to just vote for the one guy they know.  The second vote is essentially against the candidate that you know and like.  Your random vote has the potential to undo your main vote.  So don't cast it.  Casting only one vote is like voting for your candidate twice.  That's the power of a single shot. 

Out on a Limb

I don't know anything about sports, so I don't enter March Madness pools.   Sure, guys like me who don't follow sports could just pick the favorites and build a pretty good record, but we are never going to win the pool.  You can't win the unless you can pick some upsets.  The same rule applies to politics. 

I'm watching 10 races and I believe that it is the conventional wisdom that they will finish in this order:

1. Goldwater vs. Munsil             (Too Close to Call)

2. Giffords vs. Weiss                 CD 8

3. Graf vs. Huffman vs. Hellon    CD 8

4. Allen vs. Rosati                    Senate District 8

5. Hellon vs. Melvin                  Senate District 26

6. O'Halleran vs. Stoll               Senate District 1

7. Aboud vs. Downing               Senate District 28

8. Carpenter vs. Gorman           Senate District 6 (Too close to call)

9. Knaperek, DeSpain, DeRose    House   District 17

10. Barto, Barnes, Smith             House  District 7

I think that those choices would be a safe, if rather boring, prediction of the election.  You aren't going to make a fool of yourself, but if anything surprising happens, you aren't going to catch it. 

So I'll go out on a limb and pick a few upsets. 

First the rationale.  Notice that there are no moderates at the top of the Republican ticket?  The last Republican gubernatorial primary pitted Matt Salmon against Betsy Bayless and Carol Springer.  There was an organized effort to recruit social moderates to the polls in order to defeat Salmon. 

Who is more Conservative Munsil or Goldwater?  Darned if I know.  But neither one of them are attracting moderates to the polls. 

Munsil is like a forest fire, he creates his own weather.  Most candidates try to win over people who are going to the polls.  Munsil brings voters to the polls; those voters vote on social issues.  This will be a much more conservative, more specifically socially conservative, primary than we have ever seen. 

There is a perfect storm brewing in Scottsdale.  Munsil is based there so his turnout effect will be felt the most in that region.  Additionally, the strip club ordinance--Prop 401--is on the Scottsdale ballot.  The Scottsdale churches are going to turn out in droves. 

I think that bodes badly for Allen. 

Rosati over Allen is my pick of the week.  Sure Allen is the favorite and she may win.  But I think she is in trouble. 

I'm going to extend the implications of my low-turnout, Conservatives-at-the-top-of-the-ticket theory to Southern Arizona and say that Graf indeed beats Huffman and Hellon--although I think Huffman could come in third.  That's pretty conventional, but I think under this scenario Melvin could sneak past Hellon. 

(Don't forget that Rosati and Melvin are only viable because of Clean Elections.  They have each raised the maximum, $56,000, in public money and without public financing they would be having bake sales.  There is not a lobbyist in the state who would give money to Rosati and Melvin against Allen and Hellon.)

O'Halleran might be safe in District One, because Elise Townsend is out of the race, but still on the ballot.  But that's an open seat and Stoll is running hard. 

It's possible that low turnout could yield a Conservative Hat Trick in the main Senate seats. 

In the District 7 House race, I think Barto is safe.  She's conservative, well known, running hard, and paid her party dues.  (Full disclosure, I gave Barto $100.)

Smith has 100% name recognition.  He's run 5 times, won once and been removed once.  I think the party faithful think he was scapegoated by Clean Elections.  Napolitano didn't even pay a fine for her violations and he was fined tens of thousands of dollars AND removed from office. 

Barnes has had health issues and run a pretty lackluster campaign.  It's possible that Smith sneaks past Barnes. 

DeRose is the underdog in District 17.  His signs suck and his literature hasn't been that great, but he's been walking for nearly a year.  It's hard to beat that and he may slip past DeSpain.  Knaperek is safe. 

I originally thought that Weiss would beat Giffords, but I will yeild to the wisdom of the Kenski poll and say that Giffords wins.  But it will be much closer than the polls indicate. 

A week ago I would have said that Gorman would beat Carpenter, but he sent out a hit piece that distorts her record and he's been using Re-Elect on his signs.  I still think she will prevail, but this might be a race in which late-game shenanigans are effective. 

Munsil and Goldwater? 

Munsil is running commercials to remind voters that McCain is supporting Munsil.  Goldwater is making calls reminding voters that...McCain is supporting Munsil. 

McCain's lucky he's not on this ballot. 

I think Munsil will win but it will be very close. 

You may disagree, but those are my picks.  Don't ask me about Villanova and Duke because I have no idea. 

(Don't ask me about Aboud and Downing because I have no idea there either.)

UPDATE:  A good friend of mine who is helping Allen says she will win by 10 points.  He's a bright guy; he knows he race and he may be right.  If he is, I'll buy him a plate of fish tacos.  But it's not a bet.

September 11, 2006

Going To the Source.

Political tongues have been waging over the auto dial message that Minuteman founder Chris Simcox left in Republican voicemail boxes over the weekend.  In the call, Simcox discusses Munsil and adds that "we're better off with Janet Napolitano." 

Munsil has a copy of the call, together with a response, on his website. 

Goldwater admits paying for the calls.  But everyone wants to know if Goldwater believes that Napolitano would be better than Munsil, or if Simcox just threw that it. 

So I went to the source.  Here's my email exchange with Chris Simcox. 

Chris, do you really think that Napolitano is better than Munsil?  Did Goldwater know that you were going to say that?


Greg. Not sure what you are referring to.

Burying the Lede.

The Simcox message gets a lot of attention because it doesn't contain a "paid for by" disclaimer and it includes the Napolitano statement.  Both of those items appear to be mistakes.  Goldwater says the call is from his campaign and, as you read above, Simcox regrets the Napolitano quote. 

But here's the real story.  Read the offending paragraph. 

Don's opponent is Len Munsil who has refused to oppose the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill.  I couldn't understand why until a few days ago when lo and behold John McCain endorsed Len, joining a long list of pro amnesty open border from Washington and Phoenix who want Len Munsil as Governor.  We're better off with Janet Napolitano. 

Last week I joked that McCain's endorsement would hurt Munsil.  Then I got serious.

The fact that you thought my first three paragraphs were serious is an indication of how much of a problem McCain has with the Republican base--you may have thought I was wrong, but you didn't think I was kidding. 

Now, Don Goldwater is PAYING for phone calls to remind Republicans that McCain is supporting Munsil. 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that dissatisfaction with McCain is all because of his immigration stand. 

The Club for Growth provides a round up of the criticism of McCain Feingold.  Here's a few examples. 

"Think about it again: it is a crime, punishable under the law, to air an advertisement that criticizes a member of Congress during election season."

 "What would McCain, Feingold, and the New York Times say if the U.S.-backed government in Iraq banned any criticism of itself for the next 60 days? Would they say "one giant step toward democracy"? I doubt it."

"Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 18th Century, a stain on the early American history, have we faced such restrictions on our ability to criticize the government and the representatives who are, after all, beholden to our votes to keep them in office."

And don't get me started on McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts. 

Linda Valdez tells a Whopper.

Talk about not having a clue.   Here's Republic editorial writer Linda Valdez on Prop 107

Leaving the issue of homosexuality aside, that proposal forbids benefits to heterosexual domestic partners as well – overriding the will of local governments that have extended those benefits. And what about the many businesses that offer domestic partner benefits as a recruiting tool? Munsil’s approach even erodes the GOP’s traditional Sacred Cow approach to business. This is McCain's guy?

Businesses?  Prop 107 applies to governments.  If businesses want to offer domestic partner benefits, they may do so.  Valdez should know that.  After all, she's a professional journalist. 

September 10, 2006

Crossing the Line

About a year ago, I received an email called "Separated at Birth" and it contained these two pictures.  The author said that these guys look alike and that people would think it was funny if I showed them side by side.

I knew that the guy on the right is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but who is the guy on the left?  Then I realized it is Democratic activist, one term Congressman and fellow lefty (handed that is) Sam Coppersmith. 

I said to myself "Dude"  (That's how I generally address myself).  "Dude, you can't compare Sam Coppersmith the to completely unhinged President of Iran."

So I sent it to Becky Fenger.   

I said, Becky, here's two people who look alike, this would be a great addition to your column.  She said "Dude, who's the guy on the right." (at least that's how I remember it.)  I said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  That was the last I heard from Becky on this topic. 

If Becky and I figure that it crosses the line to compare someone to the crazy Iranian guy, you can be sure that it indeed crosses the line. 

So I was somewhat surprised this morning when I read Sam Coppersmith's Tribune  column and he compared Senator Thayer Verschoor and the other Republicans in the Legislature to, you guessed, it Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Of course, there are tremendous differences between what Ahmadinejad and Verschoor propose for their respective governments' higher education systems.  One demands that professors be less liberal and more conservative, while the other demands that professors be less liberal and more conservative. 

Clever.

Liberals have become unhinged about the Academic Bill of Rights which includes such wild notions as:

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.

On August 30th, I printed a letter that American history teacher at Tucson High School, Eric Johnsen sent the faculty regarding 9/11.

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?

If I were attending Mr. Johnsen's class, I would hope that I would have the right to, say, discuss Pearl Harbor without my grade reflecting my failure to mention American Imperialism. 

Coppersmith et al don't seem to think that I should have that right. 

Of course, if a teacher questions evolution or displays a copy of the Ten Commandments, coppersmith would call for his head--or compare him to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

September 9, 2006

Chip and Howie head to Jail

Did you catch Horizon on Friday night?  Mike Grant asked for predictions in the Republican Primary for Governor. 

What?  Howie and Chip are betting on an election?  Let's leave out the obvious ethical implications of reporters covering a race while betting on the outcome.  Let's just look at the criminal side.  Here's A.R.S. 16-1015

A person who, before or during an election provided by law, knowingly makes, offers or accepts a bet or wager, or takes a share or interest in, or in any manner becomes a party to the bet or wager, or provides or agrees to provide money to be used by another in making the bet or wager, upon any contingency whatever arising out of such election, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Of course, you will say that I'm simply nit picking.  After all, this is a friendly wager.  But the law doesn't make that distinction.  Just check out this article--by Howie Fischer.

The bet is off; Appeals court upholds law against election wagers

The Arizona Daily Star
August 23, 1995
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

So you don't think there's anything wrong with a friendly little wager on who will win the next election.

Wanna bet?

The Arizona Court of Appeals yesterday upheld state laws that make it a crime to wager on the outcome of an election. The judges unanimously rejected arguments that the statute infringes on the free speech rights of participants.


OK, Howie and Chip aren't likely to go to jail.  But this could be a very expensive lunch. 

The case that Howie covered so extensively in 1995 went all the way to the state Supreme Court.  The statute was upheld.  The prosecutors eventually dropped the case, but only after they realized that the defendants paid more in legal fees than they would have paid in fines. 

September 7, 2006

When it Rains it Pours: 

John McCain has endorsed Len Munsil

McCain's endorsement is a serious blow, but I think Munsil will be able to  overcome it. 

For one thing, the primary is less than a week away and many people have already voted.  Some of them will want their ballot back, but it's too late.  Munsil will get the benefits of the pre-endorsement vote. 

Ok, I'm kidding. 

Seriously, the McCain endorsement together with the Flake, Renzi, Franks and Shadegg endorsements is a huge coup for the Munsil camp.   McCain's endorsement allows Munsil to appeal to more moderate voters and should go a long way toward swinging the undecided and independent voters into Munsil's camp. 

Frankly, the endorsement says a lot more about McCain than it does Munsil.  McCain's antipathy toward the religious right cost him his momentum and possibly the nomination in 2000.  McCain's willingness to embrace Falwell and try to re-establish those ties is a sign that he recognizes that mistake. 

The fact that you thought my first three paragraphs were serious is an indication of how much of a problem McCain has with the Republican base--you may have thought I was wrong, but you didn't think I was kidding. 

McCain recognizes that win or lose, Len Munsil is going to be the leading religious conservative in the state--and a prominent force nationally. McCain desperately needs that vote. 

McCain's endorsement of Munsil--and the Protect Marriage Amendment--indicates that he isn't going to take that vote for granted. 

September 6, 2006

Fake Photos Exposed by Bloggers.

Check out this presentation of fake photos from the New York Times and Reuters. 

An Older Gentleman named Greg

I was in a meeting last week and one of the participants realized that we had a mutual friend.  She realized it was me because the friend asked her if there was an "older gentleman named Greg" in the meeting.  She spotted me immediately. 

I was going to hit her with my cane, but she walked to fast. 

Although I still don't qualify for my AARP card, I can appreciate this very funny advice from Gene Weingarten.

Here's my favorite:

(2) Cleanse your language of certain callow affectations common to your generation, for they will not serve you well later in life. I, for example, employed the word "groovy" well into my twenties, until I once used it as a panelist on a TV political talk show, while discussing the sociopolitical ramifications of a gubernatorial veto. The studio audience actually laughed. In your case, when being interviewed about your nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, you do not want to say, "I was, like, 'No way,' and the president goes, 'For realz, yo,' and . . ."

Code Talk

I love political code. 

The word "Liberal" is dead.  Politicians who are associated with Hollywood on social issues and France on economic issues defended the word "liberal" until they lost all those elections and now they are "progressive."

The Republicans are even more fun to translate.  Unlike democrats who avoid the word  "liberal," Republicans of all stripes claim to be conservatives.  (Unless they are liberals, then they claim to be moderates.) 

The true moderates call themselves "conservative" and they claim that the conservatives are Ultra, Neo-con, right wing, etc. 

Here's a great example.  Bill Whalen is running against Jack Harper and he uses this code to distinguish himself from Harper. 

Whalen said he is an "un-hyphenated Republican," who would not use his religious beliefs to legislate.

An "un-hyphenated Republican," Hmm, I think that would be a "moderate," perhaps even "progressive."

September 5, 2006

Paton's Place

Republican Legislator Jonathan Paton is in the New York Times. 

TUCSON, Aug. 31 — Jonathan L. Paton is preparing to go to war in Iraq.

Mr. Paton has told his 77-year-old father, in a telephone conversation punctuated with sobs and pauses, how he wishes to be buried, if it comes to that.

Mr. Paton, running for his second two-year term in the Arizona House, is one of four Republicans in his district’s primary on Sept. 12 who are competing for two seats. The balloting occurs five days after Lieutenant Paton, an intelligence officer in the Army Reserve, is due at Fort Benning, Ga., to prepare for a five-month to six-month tour in Iraq and, maybe, Afghanistan.

Kids, Don't try this at Home

In retrospect, isn't it pretty obvious that this was going to end badly?  Discovery Channel has made its fortune and millions of kids around the world think these stunts are safe.

These Go to Eleven.

If you haven't seen the mockumentary This is Spinal Tap, you have missed a rare treat.  Here's a great scene in which Nigel explains the unique feature of his amp.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Nigel never gets it.  It's like the joke I used on my kids when they were five.  "We are getting a large pizza, do you think we should cut it into 8 slices or 16?"  They look at me quizzically and I say. "Let's cut it into 16 because I'm really hungry."

The Republic is falling into the same trap with two A1 above the fold articles about the new scourge that were are facing...gasoline that is sold warm in the summer. 

"Hot" fuel is costing him the price of a good lunch today, Duke reckons, and as much as $700 a year.

Duke, you see, is one of the few Americans who realize that fuel is often sold at temperatures much hotter than the federal standard of 60 degrees. It's a standard agreed to nearly a century ago by the industry and regulators but virtually unknown to the average consumer.

Why is the Republic re-printing two stories from Kansas A1 above the fold to complain about warm gasoline?  It seems like a vehicle to bash "Big Oil" but it's pretty lame even with that as a goal.  Isn't there anything important happening locally?

More importantly, are they right?

Well, Duke may "reckon" that his warm gasoline is costing him money, but he's like Nigel "reckoning" that his amp plays louder at eleven. 

The price of gasoline floats according to supply and demand.  If the gas is warm throughout the city, then that will be reflected in the overall price.  It's just like switching to liters.  Is gas more expensive by the liter?  Obviously not. 

Sure, If a gallon costs $2.95 at 50 degrees, it's better than a gallon that costs $2.95 at 90 degrees.  But if all the other conditions remain the same, the market will charge less for summer gas than winter gas.  So while it is tempting to compare the same price per gallon at different temperatures and reckon like "Duke" that you are being ripped off.  The real comparison is $2.95 per gallon at 50 degrees and, say, $2.80 at 90 degrees.

The Republic will never understand the difference.  They just found a story from Kansas that seemed to score a few points against "Big Oil" and decided that they were the most important stories of the week.

September 2, 2006

Adult Supervision Required

I have always wondered why there are entire schools for Journalists.  English majors write better.  Heck, accounting majors write better.  Surely any philosophy, history, English or Political Science major who is considering a career at Starbucks could take a course encouraging one-sentence paragraphs and become a journalist. 

I've decided that J schools teach "news judgment."  They allegedly train young men and women to examine an event and find a story.  They teach students how to avoid the salacious and the trivial and recognize the real news.  In theory a journalist knows what NOT to put in the paper.  The English Major/Barista may write tight prose, but he can't tell you what stories to put in and what stories to leave out of the paper. 

The journalist and his editor have professional standards, training and institutional checks that allow real stories to be well covered and the dross to simply float by--or maybe not.

If that standard existed, there could be no possible explanation for this story in today's Republic.

Abstinence backer Munsil says he had sex while single

Republican gubernatorial candidate and abstinence advocate Len Munsil admitted on Friday that he had sex before marriage.

Someone has done the math and noticed that, like Ronald Reagan and William Shakespeare before him, there are not 40 weeks between the date of Len Munsil's wedding night and the birth of his first child. 

I hope that Phoenix Newspapers Chairman Robert Dickey and Publisher John Zidich rolled out of bed this morning, poured a cup of espresso, opened the paper and said "Oh, my God! What have we done."

                                                                    Dickey and Zidich

There is no reasonable explanation for a major newspaper printing a headline about a 42 year old gubernatorial candidate who has eight children and has been married for 20 years that includes the words Munsil says he had sex while single.

The genesis of the story is that someone is conducting an illegal push poll in which the person masquerading as a pollster asks:

Len Munsil has been touted as a family values candidate. Would it affect your vote if you knew he had an illegitimate child?

This is a vicious dirty trick.  It is also illegal because the person who funds the calls isn't identified.  It will also trigger matching funds from Clean Elections. 

The calls have been so pervasive that Munsil was forced to issue a statement that his 19 year old son was, indeed, conceived while the Munsils were engaged but not yet married. 

Instead of a headline reading:

"Munsil Victim of Vicious Attack" or, "Illegal Calls Target Munsil"

we woke up to the headline mentioned above while the online version of AZ Central lead with the headline:

Gubernatorial candidate acknowledges son conceived out of wedlock

Was the story an accident?  Did some cub reporter working on a holliday weekend get Munsil's statement and not understand that the real story was the phone calls and not that Munsil had sex with his fiancée when they were in their 20s?

This was no accident.  The reporter didn't simply get the story wrong.  The reporter, who is unnamed, used the phone calls as a hook to justify a story about Munsil admitting that he had sex before he was married.  That's confirmed by the reporter's use of the term "abstinence advocate" in an effort to lead the reader to the conclusion that Munsil is a hypocrite. 

Is it hypocritical for someone who wasn't a virgin when he got married at 22 to advocate that teens should abstain?  My gosh, give me a break.  How many parents tell their kids to avoid the mistakes they made? 

Munsil is also a pro-life advocate and I will point out that he has eight children, not seven.  So much for hypocrisy. 

No, the articles are intentional.   Munsil is a victim twice.  The calls are an illegal, vicious dirty trick and the Republic's follow up used the calls as a device to further humiliate Munsil and his family. 

Munsil's a big boy, he stepped into this arena and now his face is marred with some dust and blood.  He'll get over it. 

But I have a question. 

I want to know what the new rules are. 

I don't think the Democrats and the Republic want to make this campaign about who had sex with whom and when. 

The last time candidates pointed out that Governor Napolitano is 48 and single, it was Len Munsil who called them to task.

Have those rules changed?  Under the old rules, the fact that the Governor is 48, single and likes to guest coach Mercury games was much discussed but never printed. 

I just want to know if the story about Len Munsil's sex life is a one time event--one that deserves an apology--or if it's part of a new paradigm. 

September 1, 2006

Time Flies

I went to Costco yesterday and the Christmas decorations were on display.

Gotta Love This Court

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that controversial propositions to ban same-sex marriage, preserve state land and strengthen private property rights could stay on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Duck and Weave

Governor Napolitano held a joint press conference with New Mexico Governor Richardson to discuss getting tough on immigration.  One of the reporters pointed out that Gov. Napolitano had already vetoed measures similar to the ones she was now advocating.  That observation led to this interesting exchange. 

Reporter:  Just briefly, given that you did veto both these measures [English as official language, expansion of Proposition 200], what are you going to do to convince voters to, in essence, uphold your vetoes?

Governor: I’m not prepared to comment on that. You can read my veto messages and my reasons for them.

Stump, Murphy and Burns file a complaint against Fraley

I mentioned Fraley's antics here.  My original post makes a cameo in the complaint. 

Mr. Joseph Kanefield

State Elections Director

1700 W Washington, 7^th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85007

August 31, 2006

Dear Mr. Kanefield:

We are writing to bring to your attention several areas of concern regarding the campaign of a candidate for the House of Representatives in District 9, David Fraley, who is making his fifth attempt at elective office.

Last week, signs began to appear throughout our district, which read "Your Trusted Leadership Team - Fraley, Stump, Burns" (see attached Exhibit 1).  (On August 29, this issue was discussed at length on the on-line political blog, espressopundit.com).

Rep. Bob Stump did not give Mr. Fraley's campaign – or anyone, for that matter – permission to use his name, nor did Sen. Bob Burns.  These signs imply a joint campaign effort where there is none; an endorsement of Mr. Fraley's candidacy on the part of Sen. Burns and Rep. Stump, although no endorsement exists; and an association which is non-existent.   Mr. Fraley and/or his campaign volunteers have also taken to posting his campaign signs directly in front of Rep. Stump's signs – posting them so closely together that one gets the distinct impression that only one sign has been posted ( see attached Exhibit 2).

Owing to these issues, as well as issues of moral turpitude with regard to Mr. Fraley, we do not want our names associated in any way whatsoever with his.

These "team" signs, in particular, raise important and serious questions:

1.   "William Atkinson" is the individual listed on the signs as having paid for the signs.  A person named "William Atkinson" also collected many of Mr. Fraley's petition signatures.  Is this the same individual?

2.   Does Mr. Atkinson's spending represent an "independent expenditure" as defined in ARS §16-901.14, which says, in pertinent part, an expenditure is not independent if it is coordinated with a candidate?  "Coordination" is assumed when the "officer, member, employee or agent" of the political committee making the "independent expenditure" is also an "officer, member, employee or agent" of the campaign committee.  If Mr. Atkinson is the same individual who collected numerous signatures for Mr. Fraley, is he an agent of the Fraley campaign committee?  If so, the argument that his expenditures are independent is eliminated.

3.    Is Mr. Atkinson acting alone and spending his own money on the signs?  The definition of a political committee is two or more people who join together to influence an election (ARS §16- 901.19).  All of the various reporting and disclosure obligations attach to committees.  We have found no listing for such a political committee on-line, on your site.  Could Mr. Atkinson plausibly claim that he alone is responsible for these signs being posted throughout the district?  An on-line post made on 8-24-06, on the message board portion of the "Inside Politics with Clancy Jayne" website, addresses the issue of the number of people involved in the placement of the signs (see attached Exhibit 3).  It was signed by "William Atkinson" (who claims a birth date of 3-28-72 in his profile).  In pertinent part, the post says, "I would like to know what ever [sic] happened to gentlemen, running for elected office, acting accordingly, with old fashion [sic] values.  I ask this because my son started putting up signs…and within 4 to 6 hours four of the 15 signs had been stolen."  The poster admits that he and at least one other person were involved in the placement of the signs, thereby making them a "political committee" by definition and subject to reporting requirements under state law.

4.   If an expenditure expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is not independent then it must be a "contribution," in this case, an in-kind contribution of signs.  The largest contribution any one person can make to a legislative race is $296.  Owing to the large number of his signs throughout District 9, it is likely that Mr. Atkinson has exceeded that limit.  Mr. Atkinson may also have exceeded the total contribution to any and all committees, which is $3,530.  As of today, no campaign finance report anywhere, to the best of our knowledge, can answer this question, because none has been filed listing William Atkinson's expenditures.

5.   Mr. Atkinson should have sent Mr. Fraley a letter informing him of the in-kind contribution – if his expenditures do indeed represent an in-kind contribution – so Mr. Fraley could report it.   And yet Mr. Fraley's campaign finance report filings make no mention of any in-kind contribution from anyone.  In fact, there is no reporting whatsoever, as far as we could find, regarding one William Atkinson and expenditures on signs.

We also have concerns about Mr. Fraley's campaign finance reports as filed.  The June 30 report does not enumerate the occupation and employer of any of the 14 contributors – the total number of entries.  Nor does the August 31 report include such information for the sole contributor.   What are the occupations and employers of Mr. Fraley's campaign contributors?  In addition, the August 31 report shows $220 in the "$25 or less contributions" category, but the details show only one single entry of $220, on 8-21-06, which is rather suspicious.  Our understanding is that small contributions are supposed to be entered individually, showing the date each was received.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions, which impact the public trust and the integrity of our campaign finance laws.

Sincerely,

Here's a Reprint of an earlier article.

June 19, 2006

I’ve had several prominent conservatives email this article to me. 

One of the five Arizona Supreme Court justices who will decide Republican legislators' constitutional challenge of a line-item veto by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano argued on her behalf as a private attorney in a similar case three years ago.

The consensus seems to be that there is no way Justice Bales can be impartial and his refusal to recuse himself is a sign of foul play. 

I disagree.  Supreme Court Justices are notoriously hard to pigeon hole.  Republican Presidents would have ended up with more Conservative Justices by picking nominees from the phone book.  Don’t forget that Harry Blackmun—author of Roe V. Wade--was a Nixon appointee.  Anthony Kennedy?  David Souter?  Give me a break. 

Can a man argue one way as an attorney and rule the opposite way as a judge? 

The best example that I can recall is Justice Stanley Reed who served as Roosevelt’s Solicitor General before being appointed to the Supreme Court.  After arguing for the New Deal on behalf of Roosevelt, Reed went on to a career as a surprisingly moderate swing justice who, for example, only reluctantly supported Brown vs. Board of Education.

If Justice Bales says he can rule impartially, I think we should take him at his word. 

But it doesn't matter.   Republicans are going to win the veto case 5-0.

I’m not an attorney.  Don’t take financial advice from your barber and don’t take legal advice from me.  But let’s look at this case politically.   That’s a task for which I am qualified.  

Arizona Governors enjoy the power of the line item veto.  That means that they can take an appropriation item and scratch it out.  That’s one reason that Arizona doesn’t have earmarks.  Particularly egregious spending projects--like earmarking $17 million to buy Jomax road at the 303--can be excised from a budget bill. 

The veto case arose when governor Napolitano scratched out a policy provision of a bill and claimed that she had the right to do so because implementing it affected state spending. 

It’s not going to stand.

The Justices could have punted—given Napolitano a victory and not ruled on the merits of the case—by declaring that the Legislature didn’t have standing.  This is what they did in the last veto case that was before the court.  However, they accepted this case. 

They have another opportunity to punt.  They can hear arguments and then declare that the issue is a political question.   That would be a bad move.  If they were looking for a way to avoid ruling on the merits, they had a better opportunity with the issue of standing.  It would be foolish to rule that the Legislature has standing and then avoid the merits by ruling that the case is political.  So they will rule on the merits. 

While the issue is not a political question in the legal sense, it is totally political in its implications. 

If this stands, it will be a massive power shift from the Legislative branch to the Executive Branch.  EVERY policy decision has some effect on state spending.  Legislation is the art of compromise.  Bills have provisions that reflect the interests and concerns of a wide group of Legislators.  Bills often only pass because they contain provisions that are balanced by other provisions.  Granting the Governor the ability to excise policy provision out of bills would allow future Governors the ability to unwind those compromises and allow portions of the bills to go into law.

Can you imagine that power in the hands of Fife Symington?   Can you imagine Fife sitting with my friends Chuck Coughlin and Jay Heiler going through bills and eliminating some policy clauses while letting the remainder of the bill stand?  If gives me goose bumps. 

The Justices can imagine that.  Moderates would have no place at the table.   Democrats would have no place in the room.  If the Governor has the authority to single handedly amend legislation by lining out policy compromises, the Legislative process as we know it would cease to exist. 

The shift is too massive; Napolitano is going to lose. 

Too bad.  Democrats aren’t going to control the Governor's office forever and I can think of no single initiative that would benefit Conservatives more than giving the governor the ability to single handedly make policy changes.

I opposed the Independent Redistricting Commission before I realized how much it would benefit Republicans.  (Suburban growth eliminates urban and rural legislative districts and creates Republican districts out of Democratic ones.  Legacy power maintained by Legislative Democrats allowed them to soften this transition, however the Independent Commission is no respecter of incumbents and ruthlessly eliminated urban and rural districts in favor of suburban ones.  When I served in the House there were 33 Republicans, now there are 39.)

I opposed Clean Elections as well.  Yet equalizing the funding dramatically increases the viability of Conservatives who no longer have to go hat in hand to the Chamber crowd.  With equal money, a passionate core of supporters tips the balance; passionate moderate is an oxymoron. 

The Legislature is more Republican because of the Independent Redistricting Commission and more Conservative because of Clean Elections.  Thank you Jim Pederson and Kevin Ann Wiley. 

So, if we are lucky, Governor Napolitano’s naked power grab will stand.  Because eventually, there will come a time when the natural order of things is restored and a Republican will sit on the 9^th floor.

But alas, it is not to be.  The Justices understand politics and they understand power.  Napolitano is going to lose 5-0.

Your Mileage May Vary

You may recall that Rep. Rios sent me this email when I questioned his mileage.

March 27, 2006

Back Room Deals and Power Brokers

Clara M. Lovett, president emeritus of Northern Arizona University, wrote a My Turn column in today's Republic.

Give us credit for perseverance. Arizonans, like myself, who define themselves as "political moderates" and advocate for research-based, non-ideological public policy, first rallied around the Arizona Policy Forum, then around Mainstream Arizona. 

We are trying again, this time with the Project for Arizona's Future.

Well and good, but she failed to point out that the Project for Arizona's Future is raising $3 Million while refusing to disclose its contributors. 

Color me skeptical.  She mentioned that she first rallied around Mainstream Arizona, but we now know that Mainstream raised $300,000 from corporations and unions and then spent money advocating on behalf of candidates, not issues.  Mainstream paid a fine of $5,000 and disbanded.

According to Howard Fischer,  This new organization is run by an out-of-state Democratic operative who said the organization would disclose its contributors "after the election." 

Ziemba, who has been in Arizona a year, has done public relations for Democrats, including the 2004 presidential campaign of John Edwards.

Why after the election?  After all, if Project for Arizona's Future is really a non partisan issues oriented group, then releasing the names of the contributors should be an easy call and the next election should be a meaningless factor in that disclosure.

Of course, if the real goal is to affect elections not issues then the current structure, leadership, secrecy and timing of Project for Arizona's Future makes a lot of sense. 

If the real goal is to affect the election, I sure hope that none of the money they are collecting is from corporations or unions.  What with that being a felony and all. 

Of course, we aren't going to know that until it's too late. 

October 26, 2005

Unintended Consequences, Or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Clean Elections.

Bob Robb has written the most insightful paragraph that I've read about the Clean Elections system.

Paradoxically, the primary effect of public financing has been to increase the influence of social conservatives by enabling them to compete in Republican primaries with business-backed candidates, who tend to be more moderate. The net effect of public financing has been a more conservative Legislature, hardly what promoters intended.

Well said.  In a pre-clean elections environment, a Republican candidate had to be able to appeal to the party faithful at district meetings as well as the business community at Chamber/lobbyist meetings. 

A candidate who had little support from the local Party workers couldn't get the core votes or logistical support that it took to get elected.  Meanwhile, the candidate who didn't appeal to the chamber crowd had to finance his own campaign and ended up stenciling his signs on plywood.

Sure, the occasional RINO would get through the process, but as a general rule, a candidate had to appeal to both groups to get elected. 

Since a precinct committeeman can get you as many $5 contributions as a CEO or an A-Team lobbyist, Clean Elections has removed the chamber crowd from the equation.  Without the moderating influence of the "business community," candidates tend to reflect the values of the hard-core party workers. 

I've been to plenty of chamber meetings and plenty of district meetings.  I have good friends in both groups, but they don't know each other.

At a district meeting, you are likely to hear the calls for lower taxes and fiscal restraint that you would hear at a Chamber meeting. But you will certainly also hear about the sanctity of life, school vouchers and the Marriage Amendment. Of course, there will also be that fringe group that wants to discuss the Trilateral Commission, Posse Comitatus, The Federal Reserve Board (Unconstitutionality of), The Mena, Arkansas Airport and the Prescott-based stealth helicopter squadron.
 

Now that Clean Elections has limited the "special interest" money, the moderates are gradually getting picked off and the open seats are being filled by conservatives.

Unintended Consequences in 1986

Bob Robb makes another good point

In reality, Arizona has only had a short-lived period of conservative governance in the mid-1990s, under Fife Symington.

Ironically, the brief moment of conservative governance to which Robb refers was a direct result of campaign finance "reform" as well.  In 1986 proposition 200 created Draconian contribution limits that dramatically limited the power of legislative leaders like Burton Barr and Alfredo Gutierrez.  

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum and a crop of young Turks capitalized on the sudden absence of campaign money in key races and took out a handful of incumbents. 

Stan Barnes opened the floodgates in 1988 by taking out moderate Bob Broughton.  Then in 1990, David Schweikert and Lisa Graham won in District 28, Jim Buster beat Jones Osborn in Yuma, and Keith Bee defeated an incumbent in Tucson.  Gary Richardson took over in Tempe and Ben Benton won a seat in Flagstaff.  I spent $1,400, walked door to door all summer and beat Jim Miller in District 26. 

In almost every case the replacement was more conservative than the incumbent.  Most of us were under 30.   Keith Bee was 24. 

Real Reform

If you want a centrist legislature that will govern from the middle you will need to re-empower the "special interests" and the business establishment by scrapping clean elections and contribution limits.  Keep the reporting requirements and let the voters decide if they think a candidate is too beholden to the wrong contributors. 

If not, you should probably learn about Posse Comitatus so you and your legislator will have something to talk about.