|
EspressoPundit Ruminations of an over-caffeinated political junkie |
|||||
|
|
April 3 Here's Opinion Journal's take and an unfortunate headline in the Republic
Can't We Get Them Some Real Food?
March 31 Here's a letter about the Terri Shiavo tragedy.
Greg As I take a late lunch, a news item from
National Journal re: Schiavo fallout: Wednesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley
Birch Jr., appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, wrote a rebuke
of President Bush and Congress, saying Congress' and the White House's
actions on the case were "demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers'
blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution." Is this not the same Constitution that established the creation of a bi-cameral legislative body with powers equal to that of the executive and judicial branches? And does this Constitution not also charge each branch with serving as a system of checks and balances against each other? So, the duly elected representatives and senators who must bow to the will of the people and face them at the bar of public opinion every so often passed legislation to remedy what many believe to be a tremendous injustice. This bill became law when signed by another duly elected public officer. Their efforts ultimately failed. Why? Because the unelected and effectively unaccountable judicial branch (when was the last time a federal judge was impeached - 20 years ago?) did not interpret the law as intended by those who wrote it. In other words, one branch of government overrode the will of the two others. Constitutionally, that's the way things are supposed to work. Checks and balances. But Judge Birch has the nerve to preach to the country about how much damage the president and congress did to the Constitution with the Schiavo law? He's a sore winner. Every court that looked at this law refused to grant relief to Terri's family, so, if anything, Judge Birch should be praising the effectiveness of the Constitution because the courts saw congress as overreaching its bounds. I think he was just ticked off that people somewhere besides the judiciary had the gall to try and craft legislation. Isn't that what judges are really for? They seem to think so. Doug Nick Well said
March 30 My post on the Gov's veto of the corporate tax credit for scholarships bill drew this response from a teacher in Pima County who was with TUSD for nearly 30 years. Greg, The teachers'
unions, esp. here in Tucson, are killing, destroying the name withheld Well said
March 29 Mainstream Arizona has settled with the AG's office. The committee has to pay $5,000 and register with the Secretary of State's office. But this is interesting: Mainstream will demonstrate to the Attorney General’s Office that it did not use corporate contributions to pay for any of its mailings within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order; Hmm, Since most of the money they received was corporate, I'll be interested to see the evidence in their demonstration.
Wow, Salvador Reza is ticked off. He thinks that Arizona is a racist state, run by racist guys like Russell Pearce who sponsor racist bills like the one that would: ban undocumented immigrants from living in public housing, taking adult literacy courses and enrolling in college, among other services. But Salvador has a solution. Salvador Reza is working with a California-based immigrant rights group to organize the boycott and hopes to publicize it through Latino organizations across the country. Without an immigrant workforce, he says, Arizona's economy would collapse. That's right, Salvador is going to get back at racist guys like Pearce by...telling Mexicans not to come here. Yeah, that will show him.
Gov. Napolitano has looked unbeatable of late. But if she loses, I'll point to this event as the key factor. Gov. Janet Napolitano Monday vetoed a measure offering tax credits to businesses that donate to private school scholarship funds. The Democratic governor nixed the Republican and Catholic schools-backed bill which extends existing individual private school giving tax credits to businesses Teachers unions oppose the measure, Both of Arizona's Catholic Bishops endorsed the bill, but when the Gov. was forced to choose between two key Democratic constituencies, she went with the teacher's unions. Arizona Republicans enjoy a 150,000 voter edge and a higher turnout percentage. To win statewide, an Arizona Democrat must keep her entire base and lure enough crossover voters to populate Flagstaff--three times. The low income, Catholic--primarily Hispanic--families who pay to send their kids to religious schools who would have benefited from these scholarships, are, of course, a core Democratic constituency. The natural organization that develops around churches and schools means that this constituency has the deepest of grassroots. They are active, organized and now ticked off. Don't get me wrong, the Hispanic Catholic community will vote overwhelmingly for Napolitano. But she doesn't need "overwhelmingly," she needs "unanimously."
March 28 Perhaps the best example of media hypocrisy you will ever see. When former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was "outed" as a CIA operative, major newspapers--especially the New York Times--demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor. Conservatives complained that the charge was politically motivated and it was clear that no crime had been committed. But with an election looming, the east coast editors and the NPR crowd smelled blood and it smelled like Karl Rove's blood. John Ashcroft reluctantly complied and called for a special prosecutor--who promptly subpoenaed the newspapers in an effort to find the leak. Now that the election is over and the papers have realized that the prosecutor is going to go after reporters, the east coast crowd is singing a different tune. From Thursday's Washington Post A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.
March 27 He is risen, he is risen indeed.
March 25 Here's a recent email in Bush/freedom, Gore/internet controversy. Greg,
Name withheld Here's my response. I appreciate the feed back. Thanks. I'm somewhat of a history buff myself. The two periods that you address have been discussed often in the debate about current events in the Middle East and I considered them carefully when I made my claim. Unfortunately, the countries created after WWI didn't stay free long and we have yet to see if the "Arab Street" will surpass the fall of the Soviet Empire. But I think it is well on it's way to doing so. As for who gets the
credit, I think Reagan gets credit for the fall of the Soviet
Empire--although Truman gets credit for containment, which was far better
than Roosevelt's policy of appeasement.
Check out this video
March 24 This is shocking. I'm sure no one expected this and it must be the first time it has ever happened. The first leg of the new light rail system is...gasp...way over budget. The cost of the
automated people mover that would connect the Metro light-rail system with
terminals at Sky Harbor International Airport could climb higher than $1
billion, a price tag that is forcing airport officials to scramble for
ways to scale it back. When originally proposed in January 2001, the cost was projected at $200 million. Wow, 200 million in 2001 became 700 million in 2003 and is 1 billion in 2005--and we are still in the design stage. I can't believe it. Next you'll be telling me that publicly funded stadiums are a poor investment, there's a glut of public Civic Centers , "voluntary" all-day Kindergarten is, in fact, mandatory and provides no long-term benefits. Thank goodness T-gen is going to move Arizona into the future so life will be worth living otherwise I would spend my days longing for the Phoenix Grand Prix while walking--absolutely alone--by Tempe Town Lake.
March 23 According to the New York Times Paul Wolfowitz once wrote that a major lesson of the cold war for American foreign policy was: "the importance of leadership and what it consists of: not lecturing and posturing and demanding, but demonstrating that your friends will be protected and taken care of, that your enemies will be punished, and that those who refuse to support you will regret having done so." That pretty much sums up the difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
March 22 It's frankly not surprising that the Republic abandoned its long-held support of school vouchers in an overt effort to provide veto cover for Gov. Napolitano. Get your veto pen ready, Gov. Napolitano. Vouchers are coming. However, it is surprising that the editorial defenders of the status quo could do little more than regurgitate well-worn NEA talking points And more talking points (NEA et. al. talking points in blue, Republic Editorial in black)
The public doesn’t want vouchers.
Sending public money to private schools, including religious schools, that operate with little public scrutiny or public accountability is not a wise choice.
Families that can't afford transportation don't really have a choice.
Touting vouchers as
a way of helping the poor "rescue" their children from low-achieving
schools is a false promise because few of those parents can provide the
transportation to get their children to the private schools.
Will a
voucher pay all or part of the tuition? Vouchers take money away from low-performing schools. The students left behind would see their hopes for a good education further diminished as their schools were bled of resources.
Arizona needs targeted investments in public schools
strong public education
as a key underpinning of democracy.
While providing a barrel of red herring, the good folks on the Republic’s left bank fail to address one point. Unlike two of the education establishment’s pillars of faith—head start and all day Kindergarten—the evidence demonstrates that school vouchers actually have long term benefits for children. Especially for disadvantaged and minority children After one year, the results show that students who used a scholarship to attend a private school scored 5.9 percentile points higher on the math section of the ITBS than comparable students who remained in public schools. Choice students scored 6.5 percentile points higher than their public school counterparts in reading after one year. Standardized reading and math test scores for black students who had used the vouchers (worth up to $1,400 each year) to attend private schools for three years were 9.2 percentile points higher than those of comparable black students who did not attend a private school. Shouldn't that be the standard by which vouchers are judged?
March 21 Kudos to Bob Robb for unmasking Greater Phoenix Leadership. GPL is a
self-appointed group of business and community leaders that, at this
point, pretty much operates as a liberal lobby, consistently supporting
the expansion of government power and influence. He could have gone further by pointing out that many of those large corporations share a common characteristic--they rely on government largess for their existence and their CEOs tend to be successful based on their ability to deal with government agencies. The GPL Board of Directors is dominated by heavily regulated banks, utilities, insurance companies, and healthcare providers together with construction companies that profit from massive government infrastructure projects. Sprinkle in some big lawyers and newspaper publishers and it's not too surprising that GPL has a government solution to whatever perceived problem you can drum up
Here's an embarrassing correction in the Washington Post via powerline The March 18 Names & Faces column included a quote that was attributed to Britney Spears via Allure magazine. The quote was actually a spoof, written by a Philadelphia Daily News reporter, of an Allure interview with Spears. The spoof was then picked up as an actual quote by MSNBC.com. Here's the fake quote Like omigod, I have to tell the maid to buy diapers and get the poolboy to walk the dog? Can't I just make out with Kevin all the time? Being married sucks. You would think that the mainstream media would, like you know, check stuff like this out. Of course, if you read in the Republic that Colette Rosatti said that abortion causes cancer, you can be excused for being skeptical. If you want accurate media, check out the blogs.
March 19 My Sunday post managed to tick off John Genette of Carefree. This letter to the Editor was published in Tuesday's Republic. In the spirit of a sore winner, Greg Patterson rekindles the notion that Al Gore should be mocked for saying he invented the Internet. Gore never said that, but he did, in fact, play an instrumental role in supporting the Internet's development in the United States. By breathing life into the inaccurate version of the Gore-Internet quote, Patterson uses the broad platform given him by The Republic to make an irresponsible contribution to community dialogue I can only hope that the burgeoning democracies Patterson applauds don't look to him for an example of civil discourse. - John Genette, Carefree Here's what I said on Sunday.
The World is experiencing a new birth of
freedom. From the successful elections in
Two men are largely responsible for this
transformation. President Bush, whose willingness to identify the Axis of
Evil--backed up with troops in
Dude, it was a joke. But since you insist on making a case of it, let's chat a little bit about Al Gore and the Internet. On March 9, 1999 Gore appeared on CNN'S WOLF BLITZER. GORE--But (my vision for America) will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. Some might argue that I'm being unfair by replacing "took the initiative in creating" with "invented" but I believe it's a distinction without a difference. It ultimately doesn't matter because Gore eventually backed off the statement. But first his staff shoved his foot further into his mouth. Here's a defense of Gore that explains what followed: Gore's spokesman Chris Lehane tried to explain. He noted that Gore "was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." [AP, March 11, 1999] So instead of saying that he had mispsoken, Gore's staff tried to claim that Gore's Congresional efforts helped create the internet. That's not the same as "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" and it's not true either Here's a brief history of the net published in 1993. And, believe it or not, it includes a contribution by Al Gore It starts like this Some thirty years ago (1963) , the RAND Corporation, America's foremost Cold War think-tank, faced a strange strategic problem. How could the US authorities successfully communicate after a nuclear war? The article goes on to list the usual ARPANET history etc. The Gore contribution is listed in the bibliography. One of the books used as source for the article was: The Internet Companion an Evangelical etiquette guide to the Internet featuring anecdotal tales of life-changing Internet experiences. Foreword by Senator Al Gore. Well, that's kind of like creating the internet. Gore finally got wise and backed off by saying The day I made that statement, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the Camcorder. Now that's funny. He should have said it originally. March 15 I'm starting to feel bad for former ASU President Lattie Coor. First, he gets a school named after him--but it's failing and in danger of being taken over by the state. Then he starts a think tank, excuse me he calls it a "do tank." (My aunt's do tank must be too small, because they have to get it cleaned out, like, twice a year.) Lattie's "do tank's" goal is to promote a vision for a better Arizona. Back when he was ASU President, the media and political types used to beat a path to his door so they could partake in his vision and glimpse the new economy. That's because they never understood that the real economic engine in the state is a guy working a second job at Home Depot so he can put his kid through Brophy. The trouble with Lattie's vision is that Michael Crow followed him as ASU President--now that guy's got vision. Teach kids? Shucks, we're going to buy downtown Phoenix and turn it into Silicon Valley circa 2001, or Japan circa 1995. Biotech and Starbucks as far as the eye can see. But now Lattie has got the jump on Michael. We're talking vision here. Lattie Coor's Do Tank has announced that it is going to formulate a plan to.... ..Significantly lower the nighttime temperature in the Valley.
Dude, that's awesome. Forget about so called "global
warming," Let's change the weather. Maybe Michael Crow can
follow up by making water freeze at 50 degrees so we can skate on the
Tempe town lake. Now that would be cool, maybe they could finally
get someone to actually got there. But why be critical, that was
last year's vision. March 13 You can make a lot of mistakes in business and survive, but every industry has its fatal error. There’s always one mistake, or one small error in judgment, from which you can’t recover. In the airline industry, for example, you can be late, you can lose bags, but crash a plane and it’s over. In the newspaper industry, the fatal error is burning major advertisers. Newspapers don’t like to admit it, but if the hotshot reporter nails the major sponsor, that’s a problem. It’s so much of a problem that the marketing department will occasionally call a major advertiser so they can pull that week’s copy and not face the humiliation of advertising in the issue in which they get nailed. Newspapers and periodicals that humiliate major advertisers are not long for this world. In lobbying, the fatal error is taking a swing at the Chairman of whatever committee all your bills have to go through. Or looking like you are embarrassing the chairman, or being around when someone else takes a swing at, or embarrasses the Chairman. Nothing eliminates your Legislative agenda faster than looking like you may have been a root cause of nailing your Chairman. That’s why I was stunned when I researched the Jana Bommersbach hit piece on Senator Huppenthal in Phoenix Magazine and realized that the magazine had managed to combine two fatal errors. The major sponsor of the current issue of Phoenix Magazine is the State Bar of Arizona. All of the State Bar’s bills would have gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee—chaired by John Huppenthal.
March 13 I’m not a Jeff Groscost basher. I’ve known Jeff for 14 years, and I’ve worked with him (and against him), got fired because of him, been backstabbed by him and frankly, I’ve stabbed him in the back a time or two. But I don’t bash him—and I wouldn’t buy a car from him either. Jeff is like Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon—remarkably talented and fatally flawed. The flaws derailed his career early—but it’s still early. It’s easy for journalists who are one downsizing away from a career at Starbucks to snipe at men like Jeff Groscost. Sometimes it’s deserved, sometimes it’s not, but it’s always easy. That’s why it’s hard to take a Jeff Groscost story seriously. Is he actually doing something newsworthy, or is he just trying to earn a living while a reporter takes a cheap shot at him? However, I believe that this is going to be big. Jeff Groscost,… donated $19,000 to a referendum effort against a retail development in west Mesa last fall, according to a deposition taken Friday. But Groscost, who is on retainer with Vestar, which is building a rival project in Tempe, said the donations are his own money… His own money? Is there anyone in Arizona who knows Jeff and thinks that his statement could possibly be true? Political consultants don’t fund campaigns, just like lawyers don’t fund lawsuits and surgeons don’t fund operations. They make a living convincing other people to do that. Maybe Jeff is being forthright. Maybe he’s made a ton of money and decided to invest it in political causes about which he cares deeply. More power to him. Or maybe not. And if not, the next questions are going to be asked under oath and they will be posed by lawyers not reporters. And the answers had better be right. Otherwise, the fatal flaws are going to finally overwhelm the remarkable talent.
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens redeems himself. The cliché is that journalism is the first draft of history. Yet a historian searching for clues about the origins of many of the great stories of recent decades--the collapse of the Soviet empire; the rise of Osama bin Laden; the declining American crime rate; the economic eclipse of Japan and Germany--would find most contemporary journalism useless.
March 11 I was troubled by the swagger in Jana Bommersbach's claim that she "nailed Senator John Huppenthal for "lying" about all-day kindergarten in her March column in Phoenix Magazine." So I decided to do a little investigating. What I discovered was a
wide body of evidence that Jana's column is the journalistic equivalent of
a drive-by shooting, filled with twisted quotes manufactured evidence and
erroneous conclusions. It's clear who's guilty of prevarication - Michael
Moore would be proud. Furthermore, the
statistic she quotes is on the SAME PAGE of the report that indicates that
there is NO difference in the performance of children who attend all-day K
verses half-day K. "I wanted to be sure I had it straight. The guy who directed the study finds it difficult to determine how somebody concluded all day kindergarten was worthless?" This appears to Jana to
be confirmation that Dr. West secretly agrees with her that Huppenthal is
lying.
March 10 Last week, I attended the parent orientation for my junior high age son's facts-of-life class. Good thing too, because when I was his age and went through the class, I was too busy passing notes and giggling to learn anything. Now that I’m a middle aged father of 3, I’m finally mature enough to pay attention, take notes and learn something. What I discovered is the catastrophe caused by 30 years of the “use a condom” mantra. The instructor confirmed the startling fact that condoms do not prevent transmission of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) the most common, and one of the most dangerous sexually transmitted diseases. Afterwards, I looked HPV up to see how serious this virus is. One doctor put it this way: Because: there is no cure for HPV, men cannot be tested, most infected people have no symptoms, and condoms do not stop transmission -- students need to make other choices. …nearly all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. Moreover, in the USA, more women die from cervical cancer than die from AIDS! Incredibly organizations like Planned Parenthood remain in denial that their “safe sex” shibboleths are medically irresponsible, and insist on framing the debate as a defense against a political and religious onslaught. This example is typical: Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest challenges to the nation's sexual health. Ironically, Planned Parenthood concedes the same basic facts that the abstinence-only advocates are emphasizing: HPV is extremely common; condoms don’t prevent HPV transfer; and HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer. However, instead of conceding the logical conclusion that, in the face these facts, students should be warned not to have sex, Planned Parenthood provides comfort by siting declining cancer mortality rates and recommending regular pap smears! It is estimated that in 2004 there will be about 10,520 new cases of invasive cervical cancer in the United States, which will result in about 3,900 deaths. Worldwide, about 500,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Due largely to routine screening using Pap tests, the number of deaths attributed to cervical cancer in the United States dropped 45 percent between the periods 1972-1974
While we are at it, skip the sunscreen because chemotherapy is more effective than ever.
Could any rational parent consider this a responsible recommendation?
No matter what your religious beliefs, moral values or political persuasion, the evidence is clear. The only acceptable advice for our kids is abstinence only.
March 9 Dan Rather will be gone after tonight. Here's a greatest hits of bias list. “There was no doubt
Republicans in the House had enough votes tonight to pass another key item
in their agenda to rip up or re-write government programs going back to
the Franklin Roosevelt era. It is a bill making it harder, much harder, to
protect health, safety, and the environment.” “President Bush
tonight outlines his cut-federal-programs-to-get-a-tax-cut plan to
Congress and the nation.” "If we could be
one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the
White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs.
Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.”
March 7 Much has been made of Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer's plan to increase the Democratic base by overturning state statutes that prohibit felons from voting. Here's George Will Here's John Fund's take on it. The Constitution grants states the authority to determine "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," but Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are pushing a Count Every Vote Act that would, among other things, force states to allow voters to register at the polls and declaring Election Day a federal holiday. And then they want to force every state to let felons vote--even though the 14th Amendment specifically permits states to disfranchise citizens convicted of "participation in rebellion, or other crime." However, there has been less focus on other desperate attempts by leading democrats to bring more voters to the polls.
Bill Clinton bent the rules on immigration to expand his base. In a memo to Clinton obtained by congressional investigators an aide wrote: "You asked us to expedite the naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens who have applied to become citizens.'' It recommended, ''Lower the standards for citizenship,'' but warned, ''INS warns that if we are too aggressive at removing the roadblocks to success, we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill.''
Incredibly, Jimmy Carter went to the Russians to expand his base Russian documents show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy. Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan. Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls. "Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.
What a difference a few months make. While these are different sources, I think they are indicative of the changing European attitude.
Indubitably, however, even his most grudging domestic opponents and his harshest critics in the region admit that Mr Bush is also in part responsible. The 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been justified by a giant fraud, but that, and above all the January election to which it led, transfixing the Arab world, has proved a catalyst. The mood at the White House, on Capitol Hill and in the punditocracy has been transformed. The weapons of mass destruction fiasco is forgotten, the deaths of US troops have slipped from the front pages. Even Senator Edward Kennedy, bitter Democratic critic of the invasion, admits that Mr Bush deserves credit "for what seemed to be a tentative awakening of democracy in the region". The neoconservatives are predictably triumphalist. "What changed the climate in the Middle East was not just the US invasion and show of arms," exults the commentator Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine. "It was US determination and staying power, and the refusal of its people last November to turn out a president who rejected an 'exit strategy'." You've got to love the Brits. Who else would say "indubitably." I also like "learnt" and "whilst."
Lest anyone think that Dan Rather's penchant for fabrication developed late. Here's an example that demonstrates he was a liar from day one. In the immediate aftermath of the Kennedy Assassination: Rather went on the air with a local Methodist minister who made a stunning claim: Children at Dallas's University Park Elementary School had cheered when told of the president's death. The tale was perfect for the moment, reinforcing the notion among distant media elites that Dallas was a reactionary "City of Hate." Except that it wasn't true, and Rather knew it
March 6 Here's an excerpt from the Sean Noble email. You've probably heard of it by now. It was sent to members of the Legislature, and it is having an impact on the debate over All-day K. (Sean is Congressman Shadegg's Chief of Staff.) Here's the key line. Here's the whole thing. If all-day K is "voluntary" then let us have our half-day program back. With out it, our son's education suffers and it puts the education of our younger children at risk.
Thomas Sowell makes an excellent point in the Vision of the Anointed that the programs of the ruling elite must, by definition, be mandatory. If free people exercise their own choices and do so for their own benefit, that would be a market solution. Make no mistake, to the extent that the intelligentsia's programs differ from market solutions, they have to be enacted by force. There is no need to explain that to a poor family who wants to send their child to a private school but is compelled to attend a failing public school in their neighborhood--they already know. Give them a voucher. Let them choose.
March 5 Blogs work best when they are part of a network. You don't really care what I think, it's what everyone else thinks that's important and I hope I can provide a unique forum for that interaction. The case in point is the Doug Wead entry that I posted a couple weeks ago. It turns out that an espresso pundit reader had Doug's private email address, so I sent him an email and asked him about the tapes. The response I got was pretty formal and I'm sure it's a form letter response, but I found it to be interesting. Wish I could live my life over and do things differently. Actually, I think the released tapes made him look good, that unlike other tape stories this was not about catching someone doing something wrong but catching someone doing something right.
This is what I am doing now, not sure what else I can do. 1.) Directing any future proceeds from the book to charity and 2.) finding the best way to get these tapes back to the president to whom they belong.
Doug Wead
Not sure what more I can do. Here's a relic from the past:
Anyone remember who Doug's Primary Election opponent was? Were it not for Doug, Phil McDonald would have had the seat currently occupied by J.D. Hayworth.
March 4 Here's the piece I submitted for this Sunday's Republic. We'll see if I can muscle my way into the rotation past Stan Barnes and Jay Heiler
The World is experiencing a new birth of
freedom. From the successful elections in
Two men are largely responsible for this
transformation. President Bush, whose willingness to identify the Axis of
Evil--backed up with troops in
The Wall Street Journal has, in my opinion, the best analysis of the recent juvenile death penalty case. But what makes Roper notable, and worthy of wider debate, is the way it symbolizes the current Supreme Court's burst of liberal social activism. From gay rights to racial preferences and now to the death penalty, a narrow majority of Justices has been imposing its own blue-state cultural mores on the rest of the country. We suspect it is also inviting a political backlash. Of particular interest is the way Roper invoked foreign public opinion to determine what should be part of the national US consensus. Perhaps the most troubling feature of Roper is that it extends the High Court's recent habit of invoking foreign opinion in order to overrule American laws. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy writes. We thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that's passé. I'm not a lawyer but I'm concerned by the precedent set by this tactic. Here's a satiric look at the implications that will make my buddy Bas Aja happy. WASHINGTON, DC - In a far-reaching decision that will likely create complicated consequences for the American livestock and wedding-planning industries, the Supreme Court this morning ruled 5-4 that all US marriage dowries "must include three non-diseased oxen."
March 3 My post (below) about Joel Nilsson's naive assertion that merit selection..took politics out of the judiciary. Has drawn a response from John McDonald Lots of folks who want to reform Arizona's justice system love "the federal model," but only to a point. Without Greg Patterson's permission, allow me to finish a sentence from his latest blog: Read the rest here
I like debating John McDonald—especially when he concedes that I’m right. The point of my previous post was that Republic editorial writer Joel Nilsson demonstrated astonishing naiveté with the absurd statement that: Conservative lawmakers can't accept the fact that merit selection, as passed by the voters in 1974, took politics out of the judiciary. John opens with the line: Patterson is correct that politics is part of any selection process, and merit selection is no different. Ohh, I like that, especially the first part. However, John proceeds to make some excellent points regarding the inadequacies of my post. For example: But to say those volunteers who serve on nominating commissions are "invisible" is just flat-out wrong. Hmm, well technically John’s right. I didn’t really mean that they are literally invisible—until they engage their cloaking devices or vote themselves into executive session. That’s a metaphor. You know like “the wheels were falling off the Republic’s editorial board until Phil Boas threw down the gauntlet and told everyone to get back into the game; then it was smooth sailing.” While the selection commission operates in full view, its work is so obscure, process so arcane and media coverage so lacking, that it is virtually invisible and totally unaccountable. I will buy a nice lunch at the Wendy’s of his choice to any member of the Republic Editorial Board who can name two members of the Commission. John also makes an excellent point that federal judges serve for life. He’s right, and we all know that in Arizona, judges have to face the scrutiny and wrath of the voters every four years—judges live in constant fear that one slip up or lack of deference to a key constituency and they are bounced from office like a…give me a break. The evaluation committee that recommends judges for retention or removal is stacked with judges. Complaints against judges are kept secret, and judges run unopposed on the ballot. If they receive a simple majority of yes votes, they are retained. Only two judges have ever been removed-- nearly 30 years ago. Fidel Castro has less job security than these guys, but at least he’s not whining about it. Incredibly, Judge Marquardt was retained after being busted for marijuana possession. It took a felony drug conviction to remove him from office. In 1999 he was convicted of another marijuana offence and disbarred. The point at which it becomes easier to remove a judge by convicting and disbarring him than it does to remove him through the “merit” process, the retention system has become a farce. Arizona judges have stacked the retention system to such an extent that they serve for life. The only people who refuse to acknowledge the fact are judges and naïve editors. But the people are waking up and things are going to change.
March 2 I’m going to establish an award for the most naïve printed statement from someone who should know better and the top prize will go to Joel Nilsson for this Forrest Gump moment.
Conservative lawmakers can't accept the fact that merit selection, as passed by the voters in 1974, took politics out of the judiciary.
Took the politics out of the judiciary? You may love the merit selection system or hate it, but there is no one understands its workings and claims with a straight face that it’s not political. Judicial candidates organize kitchen cabinets and lobby every member of the committee as well as Governor’s office as part of their full blown multi-year campaigns. It requires much more political skill to navigate the “merit” model than the federal model in which the Executive branch appoints and the Senate confirms.
No Joel, the process is purely political, but it manages to bypass those knuckle dragging East Valley types who keep getting elected over the objections of enlightened editors.
Judicial selectors may be unelected, unaccountable and invisible, but they are entirely political—you know, like the founders intended.
March 1 The New York Times has shot itself in foot over the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair. Jim Taranto at Opinion Journal has the definitive wrap up. When I grow up, I will be able to blog like Jim.
Here's a really sobering chart on the average life expectancy in Africa.
Here's an interesting Hunter Thompson obit. It has this great line: Thompson was a talented journalist posing as a drug addict, who eventually became a drug addict posing as a journalist. Thompson will soon be forgotten. As the 60's icons die off, the world is going to wake up and say "What were we thinking? Kinda like we do when we look at our senior picture.
February 28
This juxtaposition depicts 50 years of progress better than any I've seen. In the first picture, Alabama guardsman keep African American students out of school. If I remember her bio correctly, Condi Rice lived within a few miles of this demonstration. Do I dare speculate that she was at both events? Don't forget that the events in first picture were orchestrated by a Democrat and the events in the second picture were orchestrated by a Republican. Most of the "leadership" of the African American community has forgotten both.
My mom went to the Botanical Gardens in Tucson this weekend and took this picture. Awesome huh?
February 22 Jon Talton’s latest column manages to go from sloppy to unprofessional to potentially libelous in a mere 250 words. He starts cute yet condescending: We must begin to consider the unhappy possibility that the East Valley is insane. What else can one conclude from its elected representatives in the Legislature? Talton then leads with an example of the usual East Valley wacko suspects…first is Jack Harper. Unfortunately for the example, Senator Harper lives in the town of Surprise on the far west side. Talton’s diatribe continues to focus on East Valley mischief with a discussion of the Guns in Bars bill. Unfortunately, SB 1363 has six prime sponsors and only two of them are from the East Valley. Sponsors are: Harper (Surprise), Arzberger (Wilcox) Johnson, (Mesa) Pearce, (Mesa) Smith (Scottsdale) and Rosati (Scottsdale.) Ok, that’s sloppy but not criminal and I wouldn’t be picking nits except that Talton then goes off on Rosati: Then there are the
weird utterances such as Rep. Colette Rosati's claim that abortion leads
to breast cancer. If this urban legend were true, it might add to the story. But alas, the truth is mired in a comedy of errors. First a little context. There are plenty of studies that link an increased incidence of breast cancer to abortion. But none of the evidence appears to be conclusive, and there is no evidence that the correlation represents causation. Rep. Rosati is a nurse and her husband is a doctor; she understands the evidence. So far, so good, but hijinks ensue. Last August Republic reporter Leslie Wright was assigned to cover a campaign meeting featuring Rosati, but got lost and couldn’t find it. Rosati’s Primary opponent tried a stunt to trick Rep Rosati into saying that abortion causes cancer. Unfortunately the article leaves the impression that the reporter was in the room and quotes conflicting sources on Rosati’s response. Rosati herself is not quoted, and claims she has never stated that abortion leads to cancer. The key line in the article is: House candidate Royce Flora, already the subject of a hit piece by Rosati, then challenged her statements that abortion has been linked to breast cancer. Next, Republic reporter Robbie Sherwood wrote a Primary Election wrap up piece that described Rosati as: an outspoken social conservative who has claimed that abortions lead to breast cancer. I called Sherwood and he indicated that he did not attend the meeting, and did not talk to Rosati. Although, he has talked to people who attended the meeting, there is no indication why he changed “linked to” in the story that covered the meeting to “leads to.” Talton picks up the chain with: Then there are the weird utterances such as Rep. Colette Rosati's claim that abortion leads to breast cancer. I emailed Jon Talton and asked him about the line and he responded: Rosati's claim was
reported in the paper, and repeated to me by people who
heard her say it at a meeting. This is journalism? It is, of course, too late to do anything about it. Once a false statement appears in the Republic three times, it becomes gospel. Fifty years from now, Collette Rosati’s obituary will appear in the Republic and it will say that she was: an outspoken social conservative who has claimed that abortions lead to breast cancer. Unless doctors discover that abortion indeed causes cancer, then her obituary will read: an outspoken social conservative sponsored a bill to allow guns in bars.
Talton continues
his transition from mere typos to uncorroborated defamatory quotes to
outright libel with this little missive: Is that supposed to be funny? Efforts to repay big-money backers are called bribery. Is there any evidence that any of the sponsors of SB 1363 received “big-money” from the NRA? Most of the sponsors ran using public money, but Sen. Arzberger took private money. If I wrote a hit piece that said: “Sen. Arzberger sponsored the “Guns in Bars” bill. According to the Arizona Republic, her "efforts repay her big-money backers, such as the NRA” Arizona Republic February 22, 2005 With Talton's slander as a kernel, I could continue... Grand Jury proceedings are secret and there is no word whether state or federal prosecutors are investigating her efforts. Talton’s statement is not funny, it is demonstrably false and defamatory and should be retracted. As for the rest of it...well, you know it's Talton.
February 20 While some argue that I was obsequious in my recent discussion of Congressman Flake, at least I never compared him to a coming Messiah. Check out this David Brooks column. In the Midst of Budget Decadence, a Leader Will AriseThere's going to be another Ross Perot, and this time he's going to be younger. There's going to be a millionaire rising out of the country somewhere and he (or she) is going to lead a movement of people who are worried about federal deficits, who are offended by the horrendous burden seniors are placing on the young and who are disgusted by a legislative process that sometimes suggests that the government has lost all capacity for self-control. Brooks goes on to name possible candidates for this fiscal second coming... In the House there are Republicans like Mike Pence and Jeff Flake (whose predictions of this program's actual cost have been entirely vindicated by events).
Senate Bill 1257 makes numerous changes to the clean elections statutes, one of which is to count the value of editorial endorsements as independent expenditures. What a great idea.
Local newspapers, however, are apoplectic. The Republic and Daily Star cheered while Arizona’s Clean Election laws eroded the average citizen’s free speech rights and are now dismayed that their shop windows are being broken as well.
The Republic tacitly admits as much in its latest editorial missive.
Martin is fighting a law that muzzles free speech by trying to muzzle still more free speech.
Funny, the Republic and Star were nowhere to be found when the law was muzzling my free speech. I hope they are not amazed by my lack of empathy while their rights go by the wayside.
How does clean elections law muzzle free speech? The Supreme Court has long recognized that I can spend as much of my own money as I wish on behalf of, or against, the candidate of my choice—as long as I don’t coordinate with that candidate.
Do you think that the state is being run by Christian fundamentalist wackos of whom your State Senator is the prime example? By all means, take out an ad in the Republic, mail a hit piece to the entire district, cut a commercial and run it on Fox. Exercise your rights; make a difference.
But the value of your expenditure will be matched by the Clean Elections Commission which will promptly send your wacko Senator a check for the full amount of your expenditure. Cash in a candidate’s hand is much more effective than an independent broadside, so Mr. Wacko’s election prospects are actually improved by your exercise of free speech.
Martin’s bill simply provides the same matching rules to the newspapers as it does to private citizens. And what’s wrong with that?
Here’s what the Star thinks is wrong with it. In a stunningly naive and hilarious missive they argue that:
A newspaper's editorial board members probably lean a certain direction ideologically, but if they're doing their jobs right, they are practicing a journalistic tradition of independence. Their allegiance is to their readers, not to any particular cause.
Yeah right. The Red Star, Pravda on the Rillito claims that while the individual board members “probably lean a certain direction ideologically,” they’re “allegiance is to their readers.” Are all their readers French or what?
Maybe instead of rationalizing that they should be exempt from the free speech suppression inherent in the matching provisions of the clean election laws, they should use their free speech rights—while they still have them—to oppose those matching provisions for everyone.
Wow, restoring my rights—now that would be an act of reader allegiance from the Star.
February 20 Here's disappointing news from the New York Times. As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality. In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush's father, disclosed the tapes' existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them. Those who have followed Arizona politics for many years will remember that Doug Wead was something of a mystery man with a host of DC connections who moved to Arizona and ran for Congress in 1992. He won the Republican nomination and was defeated by Karan English. Wead made the mistake of saying he was a Goldwater Republican and then Goldwater promptly endorsed Karan English--leaving the greatest unwritten headline of all time in his wake. "Goldwater Smokes Wead." Doug makes his living as a motivational speaker and author. I've never understood the motivational speaker circuit. It's a hard way to make a living, and, after all, how good can a speaker really be anyway? Sure, if you are famous for doing something really great and you can give a decent speech--Joe Namath, Neil Armstrong, Gary Coleman--people will pay to see you. But how do you make a living just giving speeches? That's so 1840s. My view changed in 1993. I had dinner with Doug in Paris before he gave a speech at Bercy Stadium. Dinner was of the normal political gossip variety except it was eight courses, cost a few hundred bucks and the waiter was chain smoking. The speech, however, was simply stunning. He brought tears to 10,000 pairs of eyes--including mine. By the end, the crowd was doing those freaky European soccer chants. It was truly amazing. I was deposed once and I told my attorney that I thought the questions would be "friendly." I'll never forget his response. "Friends don't ask you questions under oath." Well, friends don't record your conversations and play them for New York Times reporters either. I'll be interested to see how this story develops.
February 19
Here's a joke for your weekend pleasure. Courtesy Powerline
February 18 Here's Congressman Flake's comment on my NYT post.
Greg,
Not to squelch a good inter delegation rivalry, but there are
probably as many ratings systems as there are members of Congress.
Shameless politicians like me will tout the NTU scorecard, where I do
well, and dismiss the National Journal scorecard, where I'm probably
somewhere south of Henry Waxman (something about coddling communist
dictators by promoting the freedom to travel to Cuba, I suppose).
That said, there is nobody in the House of Representatives who works
harder and does more good for the cause of limited government than John
Shadegg. It's easy to cast a no vote. It's another to offer a better
alternative and work to get people on board, as Shadegg often does.
No, I didn't get a call from Sean Noble, and no, I haven't even
talked to John about this. John just deserves his due.
Jeff Flake
At the risk of once again sounding obsequious, I will have to say well said.
February 18 Whenever I get lonely, I just blog about Congressman Shadegg before breakfast and by the time I get to work, I have a message from Sean Noble that simply reads: Call me. Today was no exception. I think Sean is in charge of all enforcement actions that don't require the use of deadly force. Gotta love a good staff guy. Below, is Congressman Shadegg's take on the New York Times story. UPDATE: I think the information below is a good response on Congressman Shadegg's part. I will emphasize however, that my blog entry was aimed at the apparent intra-Arizona rivalry of Flake slamming the spenders in the New York Times when Hayworth and Shadegg were one the list. If Shadegg can demonstrate that he shouldn't be on the list, it makes Flake's comments even more ironic. SECOND UPDATE: I received a lot of comments on this post. One thread was that I was picking on Congressman Flake and should knock it off. The other train was that I was pandering to Congressman Flake to the point of being obsequious and I should knock it off. Well, at least I was clear. THIRD UPDATE: Good staff work also means getting your message out immediately. Notice that fellow Republic Blogger Ian Macpherson has a Shadegg defense that looks remarkably similar to the official Shadegg response below.
Here's Shadegg's response. Greg, Also, if you took the $34 billion prescription drug alternative out of the mix, Shadegg's net is $4,074 and Flake's is $7,808. (see attached word doc with the NTU analysis on Shadegg and Flake) Sean NTU's Taxpayer Friends in the House for 2003 2003 Taxpayer Friends (House) NTU believes a score qualifying for a grade of "A" indicates the Member of Congress is one of the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies. We are pleased to give these Members of Congress our "Taxpayers' Friend Award." Name
State
Grade
Score
Rank | ||||
