EspressoPundit

The mere existence of New Orleans is a testimony to the technical advancement of mankind. But it is also a monument to man's hubris. The sea will eventually claim the city, but let's hope it's not in our lifetime.

For a wonderful book on the efforts that must be maintained for New Orleans to exist--even in normal circumstances--I highly recommend Control of Nature by John McPhee.

Last week I gave the Business Journal's Mick Sunnucks some grief for declaring Ken Bennett the frontrunner without revealing any evidence.

Do you have any poll numbers? Do you have credible people who have indicated on the record that he's going to run and who can make a compelling case that he might be successful? I haven't talked to any credible Republicans who consider him a frontrunner.

Since then I've had several credible Republicans tell me that Goldwater's campaign is going nowhere and that Bennett is looking good.

Good point. I've read in several places that the number is bogus and I considered removing it, but it's hard to do that and keep the essence of the original quote.

It looks like my prediction of gas shortages was premature. Thank goodness for that.

I don't spend a lot of time quoting right-wing blogs when they rant against Democrats and I see no reason to quote left wing blogs when they rant against Republicans. But it's a story when David Corn--perhaps President Bush's biggest critic--compares Iraq to Rwanda and concludes: Clinton Lied...and Hundreds of Thousands Died.

Watch the film Hotel Rwanda, as I did this weekend. It's a brilliant and sad reminder of the horrors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, when the Clinton administration--like most of the governments of the West--took virtually no steps to try to impede the awful massacre that claimed perhaps as many as a million lives

These days it's common for foes of the Iraq war to boil down their argument into a "Bush lied and Americans died" bumpersticker--which, I would argue, is a pretty good summation of what has happened. But Clinton, as leader of the free world, turned his back on the genocide in Rwanda and far more people perished there than have done so in Iraq.

As I watched the film, it occurred to me that Bush's misadventure in Iraq--which has consumed the lives of nearly 2000 American soldiers and tens of thousands (maybe over 100,000) Iraqi civilians--has rightly prompted widespread outrage here and abroad, while Clinton's indifference (and that of other Western leaders), which in a way allowed Hutu extremists to kill so easily hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in one of the most time-efficient massacre of the 20th Century, prompted hardly a burp of indignation.

I hate to say this, but Zonitics has been passed by Espressopundit as the must-read blog for Arizona politics.

If you've listened to any of the conservative commentators on talk radio lately, you know there have been lots of tears shed over the plight of a border vigilante - now an inmate in a Texas prison -named Casey J. Nethercott. Last week, the airwaves were buzzing with moral outrage because Nethercott's Douglas ranch had been awarded to two illegal immigrants.

An Arizona ranch once owned by a member of an armed group accused of terrorizing illegal immigrants has been turned over to two of the very people the owner had tried keep out of the country.

The land transfer is being done to satisfy a judgment against Casey Nethercott, a member of a self-styled border-watch group who is serving a five-year prison term for firearms possession.

While I agree that the whole case is troubling, I will concede that the Star is correct that property rights advocates would do well to steer clear of this case.

Ranch Rescue, meanwhile has continued its patrols and dropped its support for Nethercott. Jack Foote, an Army veteran and a Ranch Rescue founder, accused Nethercott of stealing Ranch Rescue equipment and called him a "dangerous psychopath."

If you are looking for a property rights case to get your blood boiling, check out this little piece of government blackmail and the Kelo update that follows it.

A federal judge in Texas, calling the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. a "corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it," awarded a Houston financier $72 million to cover his legal fees in a decade-long suit involving a failed savings and loan and the government's efforts to take control of a stand of endangered California redwood trees in the 1990s

On Tuesday evening, Hughes issued a scathing, 131-page ruling. In it, he cited evidence that the FDIC brought the case largely because of pressure from environmental groups, members of Congress and the Clinton administration. The reason: Hurwitz's Pacific Lumber Co. owned 3,500 acres of endangered redwoods in Northern California. Hughes found that the FDIC, in close concert with environmental groups, sued Hurwitz to pressure him into a "debt-for-nature" swap, in effect giving the government his trees in exchange for his supposed liability in the failure of the United Savings Association of Texas.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.

EP's 19,000th page view was last week and, at the current rate, the 20,000th will occur before next week's update. My original estimate for the total potential audience was 25.

Readers tell me that they often wait for the link that's in the weekly reminder. The link is always the same so it will work anytime, or if you want to view the site everyday, just mark it as a favorite. Espresso Pundit is updated every weekday, but I only send the reminder link once or twice a week.

Thank you for your readership. I only hope that you enjoy reading Espresso Pundit as much as I enjoy writing it.

Here's an editorial in the Washington Post that will probably make the Gov's office happy. Of course, the words "showmanship," "desperation" and "stunt" probably aren't the theme they had in mind.

THERE ARE, NO DOUBT, elements of politics and showmanship in the recent moves by the governors of New Mexico and Arizona to declare states of emergency along their borders with Mexico. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano are both Democrats up for reelection next year -- Mr. Richardson harbors presidential ambitions as well -- and illegal immigration is a front-burner issue in both states. The declarations free up state funds to be spent on extra patrols, equipment and other needs. But the acts are even more important as a cage-rattling device -- an "act of desperation," as Mr. Richardson called it, to prod Congress and the Bush administration to pay attention to the growing problem.

To the extent that these declarations are a publicity stunt to get Washington moving, we hope they work.

One recommendation is to spend an additional $325 billion “to build a new, comprehensive model of public education, one that begins at birth and continues through postsecondary study.” Yet since 1959, per-pupil spending in American public schools has more than tripled in inflation-adjusted dollars while standardized test scores have declined. Given that, it’s perfectly reasonable to question whether more spending will have a different effect this time.

People often ask about the emails that underlie each story. I thought folks might be interested in the background on Sherwood and the Prezelski brothers. Here's the email that I used to verify the story.

The Business Journal's Mike Sunnucks insists on declaring Ken Bennett the front runner despite that fact that he hasn't announced yet and there are no polls.

State Senate President Ken Bennett -- the Republican front-runner to take on Gov. Janet Napolitano in next year's governor's race -- is skeptical of the Democrat's recent moves related to illegal immigration and border security.

Here's his response. I'll let you decide if his evidence is strong enough to let him declare Bennett the front runner.

Thanks for the note, The folks I have spoken to feel the congressional delegation, party leadership and business groups favor Bennett unless a big fish such as Quayle or Carmona get in (which looks unlikely). You might see McCain helping Bennett also.

Greg,

I am shocked at your attitude toward Sen. McCain! Don't you want our leaders to grow in office? Don't you understand the Political Theory of Evolution? As Republicans we all started out as Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals and that is where most of us remained . . . except for those fortunate few of us who Grew in Office. These exceptional few mutated and adapted to their surroundings. In so doing they were able to get invited to the right parties and get favorable press clippings about Growing in Office . . .which, of course, is very important to one's Self Esteem! Of course, a Republican becomes fully evolved when he arrives at the pinnacle of Political Evolution. How can you tell? . . . When you can't distinguish him from a Democrat!

On MacDonald's post about ASU, he says "While congratulating themselves for their international reach, they further distance themselves from some lawmakers and staff with significant influence over future state funding."

I would add (but I don't have my own blog) that they also further distance themselves from the Arizona Constitution, Article 11, Section 6: "The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible."

You would think this means the state might have higher taxes to make the education "too free." The triumvirate is actually achieving the same high-tax goal with the opposite approach: making the education "too expensive."

Yesterday, a liberal organization that has been skeptical of Roberts's nomination said that the White House's description of his relationship with the society showed the need to take a close look at his background.

I guess newly appointed Justice Scott Bales is not eying a position on the US Supreme Court. This invitation was in my in basket.

Please join us NEXT WEEK for our annual Federalist Society Lawyer-Student mixer, this year featuring Justice Scott Bales

We will meet on Thursday August 25 to mingle with ASU and U of A law students and also to hear from newly appointed Arizona Supreme Court Justice Scott Bales.

I frankly think it's wonderful that Justice Bales is going to address the Federalist Society, but Isn't that like running into Jusice Scalia at an ACLU Christmas party?

It’s reasonable to ask who the primary beneficiary of these campaigns is. Never mind that the Office of Tourism receives nearly $13 million in taxpayer subsidies in a state where businesses are perfectly capable of paying for their own advertising. There are plenty of Arizonans, from Alice Cooper and Michelle Branch to Ricky Schroder and Paul Harvey, whose faces could bring attention to the state, if that were the primary purpose.

Her letter was used as the cover of a packet that contained the lunch schedules, homework reminders and general must-read items that parents are pouring over tonight. Your tax dollars at work.

There is growing discontent over the perception (a key word here, since I'm sure university officials believe otherwise) that ASU has sacrificed undergraduate education at the altar of research and development. When citizens, including lawmakers, seem to hear nothing about the math or literature departments, but everything about "mixed-use development" and "world-class research" - all while tuition prices for in-state students skyrocket - a reaction will occur, and it may take the form of a high-stakes funding crisis.

The Napolitano, Crow, Sue Clark-Johnson troika is dragging ASU in a direction that policy makers will eventually reject and MacDonald's right that the results won't be pretty.

Ultimately, he said, Americans will demand laws to decrease emissions, just as they demanded campaign financing reform.

"It's coming up from the bottom," he said. "It's the special interests vs. the people's interests and I still have enough confidence in our system of government that the people's interest will ultimately prevail."

Doesn't McCain realize that the "grassroots" support for finance reform has been shown to be fraudulent?

Ryan Sager makes some explosive charges about the campaign-finance reform "movement" in the New York Post. Specifically, Sager alleges "campaign-finance reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a 'mass movement.'"

Sager's charge rests largely on a video tape of remarks by Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, explaining the role of Pew and other foundations in the campaign-finance reform effort. According to Sager:

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

Portions of the tape transcript are on-line here.

In addition, Sager cites a report by Political Money Line on the "campaign finance lobby." According to this report, some $140 million was spent on reform efforts from 1994-2004. Of that total, $123 million (88 percent) came from eight foundations, including Pew. This money, Sager maintains, helped create various pro-reform groups and funded efforts to increase coverage of reform efforts. Specifically, Sager alleges the following:

* In September of 2000, less than two years before the passage of McCain-Feingold, the liberal magazine The American Prospect put out a special issue devoted to campaign-finance reform. . . . the "Checkbook Democracy" issue was paid for with a $132,000 check from the Carnegie Corporation — which . . . has spent $14 million promoting the regulation of political speech in the last decade.

* Since 1994, National Public Radio has accepted more than $1.2 million from liberal foundations promoting campaign-finance reform for items such as (to quote the official disclosure statements) "news coverage of financial influence in political decision-making." About $400,000 of that directly funded a program called, "Money, Power and Influence."

NPR claims that there has never been any contact between the funders and the reporters. NPR also claims that some of the $1.2 million went to non-campaign-finance-related coverage. But at least $860,000 can be tied directly to coverage of money in politics.

* Lastly, the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation accepted $935,000 between 1995 and 2001 from liberal foundations promoting campaign-finance reform for things like a "training initiative to help television, radio and print journalists provide better news coverage of the influence of private money on electoral, legislative and regulatory processes."

The president of RTNDF, Barbara Cochran, assured me that "We did not receive money to promote campaign-finance reform." Cochran also made clear that RTNDF does not provide news coverage, it only trains journalists. But she wouldn't provide The Post with any of the training materials it produced with the foundation money.

Sager's final charge is against the media, which was "either too ill-informed or too unconcerned to figure out the fraud." On the tape, Treglia recounts a "scare" that Pew's efforts would be reported in the press, but it never happened; "journalists didn't care."

Sager's charges, if true, have disturbing implications: A handful of foundations with a specific political agenda implemented a successful campaign to change federal law under the guise of adopting "populist" political reforms, and the press never caught on (or, worse, never bothered to report it).

I’ve spent plenty of time discussing Robbie Sherwood’s reporting abilities here. I’ve also commented on State Representative Tom Prezelski’s troubles here.

Now these themes have collided in a remarkable coincidence that leaves me feeling like I’m watching a Quentin Tarantino movie--with no good guy to root for, I find myself just enjoying the show.

When I wrote about Prezelski's troubles on August 8th, I didn’t interview him. That's because the facts I used were in the Star and, frankly, he would have been crazy to discuss a possible criminal allegation on the record with me—or with anyone else for that matter. That’s why I was stunned when I saw that Tom Prezelski discussed his legal troubles on the record with the Republic’s Robbie Sherwood…or did he. Here are some highlights.

Check, please . . . Rep. Ted Prezelski, D-Tucson, told the Insider recently that he does not believe that recent front-page revelations in his hometown newspaper of a felony fraud investigation over a forged check will hurt his chances for re-election.

"It's just a police report, the police are not acting on it, and have no reason to believe they ever will," Prezelski said.

Asked if Democratic House leadership has asked him resign, to protect the seat from a possible Republican takeover in the wake of the allegations, Prezelski said no.

"I've only been hearing positive things from my constituents," Prezelski said.

"I'm just sorry that so many of my friends had to get dragged through this."

Prezelski said Singleton had, as a result of their breakup, "shopped" the allegations to Tucson media and fellow lawmakers for months to damage his political reputation.

Yeah, an admitted, though apparently not prosecutable, allegation of forgery and fraud would tend to do that.

That’s classic “Insider,” but there is something strange about the piece. Sherwood gets Tom Prezelsk’s name wrong in the lede—calling him Ted. Unfortunately State Representative Tom Prezelski has a brother who happens to actually be named Ted and it turns out that brother Ted is a blogger.

According to the real Ted Prezelski, Representative Tom Prezelski had Sherwood’s assurance that his comments were off the record.

I have resisted the urge to say anything on here about my brother's troubles. Unfortunatelyy, the Arizona Republic decided to run a smart alecky piece about them. Not only was it expressly an off the record conversation between my brother and the reporter, Mr. Sherwood (Sherwood saying "this is off the record" I guess is equivocation of some sort), but he left out some facts that my brother brought up with him.

Now, it's possible that Representative Tom Prezelski was foolish enough to go on the record and then decided to lie about Sherwood's commitment. But I frankly doubt that any State Representative would be foolish enough to discuss a criminal investigation on the record with the reporter who writes the Insider. So, I'm going to have to go with Tom on this one.

State Representative Tom Prezelski’s off the record comments about his legal situation, electoral prospects and private discussions with the House Democratic Leadership have now been used against him in the Republic.

Those comments will surely be used against him in the next election and it’s possible that they could be used against him by law enforcement. After all, saying…"It's just a police report, the police are not acting on it, and have no reason to believe they ever will," Is tantamount to saying “come and get me copper.”

Brother Ted offers no opinion on why Sherwood broke his promise to keep the conversation off the record. But he’s pretty ticked that Sherwood got the name wrong.

There are only two reasons he could have messed it up. One, he could be totally incompetent. Two, he could have been so eager to make his smart alecky points that he didn't care enough to check basic facts. Either way, it calls his journalism into question.

Actually Ted, those two reasons would explain a lot more than simply mistaking the name.

That's the premise behind such web sites as www.walken2008.com and www.walkenforpres.com, which are supposedly maintained by the "Walken 2008 Campaign" and tout a putative actor-turned-candidate who says "It's time to get America back on track."

However, the Walken for President web sites are hoaxes, according to the actor's publicist:

A Web site announcing Hollywood actor Christopher Walken plans to seek the U.S. presidency is a hoax, his publicist says.

The site, walken2008.com claims to quote the actor as saying, "It's time to get America back on track," and says he will run for the nation's top post in 2008.

But his rep told "Entertainment Tonight" that the site is "100 percent not true."

"(It) sounds like someone got a little too excited over his role as secretary of the Treasury in 'The Wedding Crashers' and now they want to make him president," the rep said.

The "Walken for President" sites were actually the communal product of members of an Internet forum who opted to launch a faux celebrity presidential campaign as a prank.

In declaring states of emergency along Arizona's and New Mexico's borders with Mexico, two governors facing re-election next year put themselves at the forefront of what could become a Democratic strategy to take the lead on immigration reform.

Don’t get me started on reporters who think it’s OK to write pure opinion pieces, slap the word “analysis” in the title and run them on A1. If you want to write an Op Ed piece, submit it as a My Turn column like the rest of us do.

The politician’s dream is to “triangulate”--adopt one of your opponent’s themes and undermine his base support while maintaining your base support. However, this miracle--like inventing a low-fat doughnut or learning to understand women--is easier said than done

Bill Clinton—who coincidentally also has a lot of experience with doughnuts and women--is one of the few politicians who has managed effective triangulation.

Napolitano and Richardson are about the learn the pitfall of triangulation—your opponent’s base will never support you, you risk alienating your base and you are immediately outbid by your opponent.

Jane Hull learned this lesson when she supported the Prop 301 sales tax increase for schools. Democrats never backed her, Conservatives felt betrayed, and the education establishment said “that was a nice start, now let’s talk about All Day Kindergarten.”

Napolitano is going to learn the same lesson. By declaring an emergency, she allows the Republicans to point out the hypocrisy of vetoing all of last session’s immigration bills and Russell Pearce immediately outbid her by essentially saying “nice start, now let’s build a fence.” Within one news cycle, she was back behind the immigration wave.

Napolitano and Richardson will never be able to outbid the Republicans on immigration because the Pearce’s of the Party will always have additional proposals that she can’t support. If she had accepted the fence, Russell would have said “nice start, now let’s talk about mobilizing the National Guard.” It was inevitable that Republican’s would control the issue within two news cycles.

Enrique Morones, president of the Border Angels…criticized the actions by Napolitano and Richardson, as political maneuvers that only fuel resentment against immigrants.

Another risk of triangulation—aside from being ignored by your opponent’s base, ticking off your base and being outbid in a single news cycle—is that you refocus the race on your opponent’s strength.

Kerry supporters made this mistake in 2004. By focusing on the “missing” ammunition in the last days of the race they succeeded in forcing voters to evaluate Kerry Vs Bush in terms of the Global War on Terror.

Why fight your opponent on his terrain? Instead of Kerry arguing that he’s better on defense, Hull positing that she is stronger on education, and Napolitano acting like she is tougher on immigration, they should focus the electorate’s attention on their strengths.

If the 2006 Gubernatorial race is about the importance of all day Kindergarten, Janet wins. If it’s about securing the border, the Republicans win.

Yesterday I printed a letter from a friend who pointed out that Gov. Napolitano's using the State Seal in her letter to the schools was illegal.

Your friend has a very interesting argument in light of the obvious political nature of the piece. Certainly it would be inappropriate to use the seal on a piece of campaign literature. As a practical matter, I don’t believe this dog will hunt. It won’t play well in Peoria. When you and I served in the legislature, we did not have to ask permission to use our letterhead with the state seal on it every time we wrote a letter. I think we would look silly if we complained about the chief executive of AZ using the seal on her stationery, even in this highly inappropriate fashion. We have so many substantive criticisms of Napolitano’s administration to raise and the other side would turn something like this against us by claiming all our complaints are frivolous.

In the last gubernatorial election against Salmon, Napolitano enjoyed a substantial financial advantage due primarily to the deep pockets of Democratic Party chief Jim Pederson. With Pederson stepping down as party chairman, presumably to run against Kyl for U.S. Senate, the question has been whether and how Napolitano might replace Pederson's largesse.

As Napolitano billboards, public service announcements and unsolicited constituent letters proliferate, the answer is becoming clear: It's going to be coming from taxpayers.

It just struck me that in her missive to the schools the Gov. used the State Seal in the upper left corner. ARS Sec. 41-130 requires that use of the Seal be approved by the Sec. of State "for a proper purpose". This law exists because Rose Mofford was furious about the Seal being used for political and commercial purposes and demanded that the Legislature give her the authority to stop it. Because this Gov. believes she IS the law in this State, I'll bet she never bothered asking for permission to use the Seal. By the way, violating this statute is a crime (Class 3 Misd.).

John Greene has filed a complaint with AG Terry Goddard over a letter that Governor Napolitano sent to every school district in the state.

Does this self-promoting puff piece cross the line into campaigning? On its own, I would have to say probably not. Governors use their own websites to brag about their accomplishments all the time.

However, the cover letter to all the District Superintendents clearly crossed the line.

Should you wish to include this letter in a school handout, newsletter or website, please feel free to do so.

Yes, Mr. Superintendent, print a few thousand copies of this letter that contains my picture, a list of my accomplishments and an appeal for support and ask your students to hand deliver it to their parents. After all, junk mail gets tossed but the first-day handouts that come home in a student's backpack--including lunch menus, immunization reminders and assembly schedules--get pored over by parents. And postage is, you know, like really expensive.

I will continue to fight for full day kindergarten until every family has this option in their district or charter school.

I launched Arizona’s Master Teacher program, an initiative that provides outstanding teachers the opportunity to develop their skills and mentor other teachers.

I will also continue the tradition I started when I took office: giving every first and fourth grader in Arizona a book they can take home and call their own.

We must continue to redirect more resources into K-12 classrooms, which we have done through my Nickel to the Classroom Initiative.

I know parents want these opportunities for their children, and we want it for our state’s future.

I appreciate your continued support in our efforts to improve education Arizona.

The answer is that they are both campaign pieces but the Corporation Commissioners spent campaign money for their sign.

Janet's sign is an example of your tax dollars at work. Follow the link on the Napolitano sign to participate in her "Arizona Treasures Tour" where you can follow Janet around the state.

...Vetoed SB 1306 Which would have allowed police officers to enforce immigration laws.

...Vetoed SB 1511 which would have banned state agencies and law enforcement from accepting consular ID Cards.

...Vetoed SB 1186 Which incorporated into statute Prop 200 requirements for proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

...Vetoed HB 2709 which would have built a prison in Mexico to house undocumented immigrant criminals.

...Vetoed SB 1118 which would have prevented people from casting a provisional ballot if they could not produce ID.

...Vetoed HB 2030 which would have banned undocumented immigrants from adult courses and government-sponsored benefits and prevented them from paying reduced in-state tuition.

...Called a private summit of law enforcement agencies to address illegal immigration.

...skipped the summit because she and Sue Clark-Johnson were interviewing cabdrivers in Ireland to get their opinion about the future of government-subsidized biotech.

All right, so another Democrat wants to get in on this immigration business. Today it's an Arizona governor, Janet Napolitano. She declared an emergency yesterday in four border counties because of problems related to illegal immigration. She moved to provide local governments in those counties with up to one and a half million dollars in state funding. Just as Bill Richardson did the day before, Janet Napolitano said that failure by the federal government -- i.e., Bush -- to secure the border allowed a flood of illegal immigration that threatened public health and safety, thereby necessitating immediate action by the state to aid its border counties. Napolitano's order directly released $200,000 from the state's emergency fund for disasters. Where have these people been?

Greg,

Gee. Does this mean that I get two double-tall espressos if I out myself?

Seriously, you have a point. I stooped to a lot lower level than I
should have. It won't happen again. Even though I disagree strongly
with most of the stuff you say (I thought your hit piece on Napolitano a
couple of months ago was way over the line, and I'm not the world's
biggest Napolitano fan by any stretch of the imagination), there's
really no need to stoop to that level. In any case, I apologize for it.

You were obviously also right about Don Goldwater, and I was wrong. In fact, if you'd dug through the archives, you'd have seen me mention a couple of days later how I preferred to have my crow prepared for
eating. You're right, btw, Jim Irvin is undoubtedly dumber than either
one of us, and I'll be happy to play the Jeff Daniels role to your Jim
Carrey.

In any case, if you're still up for the espresso, I'll take you up on
it. I suspect we've got a little bit in common, if not politics (we've
both been in the Valley for a long while, if nothing else).

Sincerely,
Stuart Dollar (aka Desert Rat)

P.S. You'll notice I didn't touch the Napolitano-Catholic Church thing
with a ten-foot pole. I remember the kerfluffle from last summer when
it was news the first time.

That's the piece in which I criticized the Republic's Michael Clancy for writing an A1 story claiming that Napolitano was "banned" from speaking at Catholic Church events. It was based on an event that took place last November and was authorized by a memo that came out in June of 2004.

I often run my press criticism by my good friend Ed Foster who worked at the Republic for many years. He provides excellent feedback and I really value his opinion. Here's his response to the piece.

A thousand pardons for my tardy reply. I just got back from Chicago and found your message.

I had read Clancy’s story before I left town. As a (lapsed) Catholic, I found it interesting. Actually, I found it VERY interesting. I’ll bet other Catholics, lapsed or otherwise, did, too. That explains why it is on Page 1, above the fold. There are a lot of Catholics around here.

I haven’t seen Clancy in years, so I don’t know why he’s reporting this issue now, rather than last year. But I can guess, which is more fun. Clancy probably missed the story last year. He probably heard about it weeks later, when he had no news hook. Then, somebody called to say that the homeless advocates had been banned. Bingo. I consider that sufficiently newsy to write the story. The fact that it got play elsewhere shows its news value. I’ve hung stories on less than that.

I know a number of Catholics who actually go to church and things. They are mostly (maybe all) pro-choice. They are liberal on gay marriage, think women should be priests, priests should be able to marry, blah, blah, blah. They also consider Olmsted pretty weird. Out of step, that sort of thing. So what else is new? The old men who run the church have been out of step for 2,000 years. Still, it makes good copy. I would have written it, and I would have played it on Page 1.

I don’t know anything about Frances Kissling. So I can’t comment on her suitability as a source. But I used to quote Evan Mecham. Using that as a baseline, practically any source should be considered acceptable.

Lefty blogger "Desert Rat Democrat" has this brilliant missive under the headline "Greg Patterson, AKA the stupidest man in Arizona"

Espresso wanker Greg Patterson, whose content-free Plugged In blog entries fit perfectly in the world's most circulated content-free daily newspaper, falls completely off the deep end today in digging through the apples at the bottom of the barrel of Gee-Oh-Pee gubernatorial candidates:

I can make a couple observations. First, of course, is that Goldwater announced two days later. D'oh. In fact, my Plugged In column was the first time the news of Goldwater candidacy appeared in print.

Second, I'm unimpressed by anonymous bloggers. If you have something to say put your name on it. In my case, I put may name and email address on it--and I get plenty of nasty feedback to prove it.

Third, if you must resort to ad hominem attacks, can't you do better than the stupidest man in Arizona? I mean, it's a big state and Jim Irvin lives here.

Four, actually the LA Times is the world's most circulated content-free daily newspaper. But its circulation is falling so fast that the Republic will fit the description in a couple years.

Maybe the Rat and I can start a joint blog "Stupid and Stupider." I'll do the Jim Carey part.

About the Desert Rat

The Desert Rat is a 41 year old Phoenix area native. He is happily married, with 2 sons, 5 cats, 1 dog, and roughly 40 tropical fish.

A graduate of Arcadia High School in Phoenix, Arizona (alma mater of Steven Spielberg and Linda Carter among others), and Arizona State University's W P Carey School of Business, the Rat's political awareness began as a teenaged son of Goldwater Republicans. His political awakening began with Reagan's deliberate attacks on the poor and elderly in the first dark days of the Reagan years. As the Rat thought more about it, he realized his own moral beliefs on helping the less fortunate simply didn't mesh with Republican ideology even then, let alone now.

A former game designer, and unpublished writer, the Rat spends his days toiling for a Fortune 500 company he can't name due for compliance reasons.

The Rat first voted for a Democrat in 1984 (Walter Mondale), and hasn't looked back since. He became politically active as a result of the Bush shenanigans in the runup to the War on Iraq, and is now an active Arizona Democrat

I'll buy a double tall espresso at the Starbucks at Park Central for the first person how can positively identify the Rat.

Then, I'll call the Rat and buy him a double tall espresso at Starbucks too. It's always fun to meet a fellow blogger.

On August 10th, I made the observation that Irish Miracle seekers Sue Clark-Johnson, Saundra Johnson and Jon Talton all sought fit to emphasize that despite the evidence that fiscal austerity and lower taxes are the key to Irish success, the real secret is central planning and government subsidies because the "cabdriver from the airport, waitresses, hotel clerks, shop people - they all seemed to understand how Ireland pulled itself out of economic crisis."

I was hoping that this trend was limited until I read the Star this morning and encountered House Minority Leader Phil Lopes' account of the the trip.

Everyone, from the cab driver on the street to the proprietor of the corner pub and the manager of the new suburban business park, is in it together.

Lopes should stick to cabdrivers for his economic advice, because he does worse a little further down.

Really, what we're seeing in Ireland is nothing new. After World War II, when Japan's industrial infrastructure was left in ruins, the Japanese built an economy that is the envy of the world, and a rival of the United States, by focusing on cooperation among business, labor and government.

Dude, Japan? Remember the 80s? Huey Lewis and the News topped the charts, Cosby was king and Japan Inc. was the way of the future. Capitalism was so dog eat dog. Why compete when you could cooperate? Pick the industries that were going to be the wave of the future and give them a leg up. Gosh that sounded good at the time. Of course Japan's economy virtually collapsed and has been bouncing along the recessionary bottom for nearly 20 years. The Nikkei averages is about half of what it was at its 1989 peak.

Japan is still suffering from an economic crisis that hit the country in 1989-90, when the "bubble economy" of high land prices and high stock market prices collapsed.

Thank goodness that Talton, Saundra Johnson, Sue Clark-Johnson and Phil Lopes spent so much time in Irish cabs. If they had gone out for sushi, the state would never have been the same.

Last Friday, Michael Clancy created a firestorm with this story about Bishop Olmsted's policy on guest speakers.

Gov. Janet Napolitano and other politicians who support issues like abortion and gay rights have been banned from speaking at Catholic churches in the Phoenix Diocese.

At that point the fan hit the ceiling. The AP picked up the story--here it is in the Star. Dozens of websites followed suit; the Plugged In gang debated it all week.

I'll venture a guess that this is the first time that Bishop Olmsted's picture has appeared in "Pam's House Blend." Which describes itself as "American. Female. Lesbian. Ethnically diverse. Opinionated. An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community."

But wait a second. What generated Clancy's story? And why was it A1 above the fold? The original statement from the Bishops was printed in a June 2004 statement called "Catholics in Political Life." And the event from which Napolitano was "banned" was a Prop 200 meeting prior to last November's election.

Clancy claims that "The issue surfaced again last week when some speakers at a memorial service for homeless people who died in the July heat wave bowed out because they thought they, too, were banned."

Representatives of the diocese of Phoenix have said that the Arizona Republic’s characterization of the story as a case of an ‘archconservative’ Catholic bishop issuing “edicts” to suppress freedom of speech is unfair. The paper further confused the issue, says Ron Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, by giving the impression that there was a double standard at work in which only public figures were “targeted.”

The Republic’s overtly anti-Catholic bias was revealed when it included quotes from Frances Kissling, the notorious anti-Catholic abortion crusader and founder of the duplicitously named, “Catholics for a Free Choice.” CFFC is a front organization funded by Planned Parenthood whose self-proclaimed mission is to undermine Catholic influence in public and force the Church to abandon its ancient teachings on sexual morality.

Kissling is a former abortion clinic operator whose "Catholic" organization is funded by the likes of Playboy magazine and has no actual members.

The US Bishops and others have repeatedly attempted to clarify that neither Kissling nor her organization is qualified to speak as representative of the Church.

Michael Clancy is the Republic's religion reporter and he's been around a long time. He obviously knows Kissling's background. Why not disclose it?

Why is this 7 month old story A1 above the fold? Do politicians get to speak at your church?

On July 30th I printed Richard Ruelas's email to me in which he pointed out the differences between what I do and "actual Journalism."

And last Friday, the Yellow Sheet Report commented on my reporting and said "...a blog is a blog; it may make a pretense of accuracy and fairness, but it is an instrument of its creator who is free to wield it as just another implement in the political toolbox."

So be it. But if I "make a pretense of accuracy and fairness," what's Michael Clancy doing?

You may think Bob Robb is as usual right with his analysis of the Irish economic miracle but his analysis is at best only partially complete. His thesis that reduced government spending and lowered taxes are the actual catalyst[s] ignores other equally important, perhaps more important, factors that gave rise to the Celtic Tiger. His strained criticisms of the policies of Governor Napolitano and ASU’s new president reveal the head-in-the-sand philosophy toward economic development, tax policy and the role of government for which he is somewhat famous.

First, the traditional Irish emphasis on education and heady government expenditures on education infrastructure over an entire generation pre-dating the economic miracle paid rich dividends for the country. Yes, direct investment in Ireland has been attracted in partial measure by attractive financial incentives, but the actual catalyst was the presence of a skillful, educated workforce continually augmented by the return of experienced Irish workers previously forced to emigrate to seek economic opportunity.

Second, the European Union took deliberate action to encourage economic development in Ireland and other lagging European economies. Via the EU Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund mechanisms, Ireland received a net benefit from the other EU countries of approx. 35 billion in the period between its admission to the Union in 1973 and 2001. These startup funds were critical to the Republic’s economic success, paying for education, job training and infrastructure investment.

Third, as you might expect from a country that has the foresight to invest heavily in its education networks, Ireland made long-term, pro-active decisions to attract businesses including increased educational expenditure levels. The government's Irish Development Agency has done an outstanding job promoting Ireland as an attractive location for direct investment, not unlike the mission of our state Department of Commerce.

Fourth, much has been made of Ireland’s economic openness and the government’s hands-off policy toward business. But that perception is really best reserved for a comparison with other EU nations. The American economy as a whole has long since promoted the liberalization of numerous industrial sectors, just as Ireland has since it became a member of the EU. One could make the case that Ireland actually emulated the American experience in this regard. In this respect, Arizona fares very well when compared to Ireland.

Finally, while lowered taxes no doubt contributed to Ireland’s turnaround, many argue that the lowered tax structure is a product of the Celtic Tiger effect, not necessarily its cause. As for reduced government spending, that resulted not only from a conscious fiscal policy but in large measure from rooting out corruption in the government.

Far from riding a one-trick pony and subscribing to the cut government spending, lower taxes mantra of certain American politicians and editorial writers, the Republic of Ireland took a balanced, aggressive and far-sighted approach that relied and continues to rely on high levels of spending for education, training and economic and industrial development. Our elected leaders and editorial pundits would do well to learn and promote the real lessons of the Celtic Tiger, those of an emphasis on education (and spending levels commensurate with the commitment) and a strategic targeted-investment industrial development policy. Those sound a lot like the policies consistently advanced by Governor Napolitano.

Head's are still shaking over the profile of the Irish Miracle, Celtic Tiger in last Sunday's Viewpoints section. I've already mentioned Thomas Friedman's point that the true reason for Irish growth was a move toward fiscal austerity, low taxes and free trade. And Bob Robb points out that Irish growth isn't as strong as Arizona's growth anyway.

So the Governor, the Publisher of the Republic and some TGen Board members headed to Ireland and decided that the secret to economic development was...more centralized planning and government subsidies for favored industries. Where in the heck would they get a plan like that? Well, I've been reading their reports in Viewpoints carefully and I think I've found a common theme.

The cabdriver from the airport, waitresses, hotel clerks, shop people - they all seemed to understand how Ireland pulled itself out of economic crisis, what it took, what the strategy is going forward,

Saundra Johnson, a vice president with the Phoenix-based Flinn Foundation, was struck by "the level of understanding on the part of average people of the importance of the economic development strategy and the emphasis on science."

"We heard it from cabdrivers, waitresses, people working in the hotel," Johnson said.

So Sue Clark-Johnson, Saundra Johnson and Jon Talton have all sought fit to emphasize that despite the evidence that fiscal austerity and lower taxes are the key to Irish success, the real secret is central planning and government subsidies because the "cabdriver from the airport, waitresses, hotel clerks, shop people - they all seemed to understand how Ireland pulled itself out of economic crisis."

Wow, journalists interviewing cabdrivers, now that's the way to form an economic development strategy. Maybe we could get a blue ribbon panel of cabdrivers, waitresses, hotel clerks and shop people. Marty Schultz could chair.

It reminds me of the time in 1999 when my barber told be to by Lucent on margin.

While it may seem pedantic, I have to congratulate fellow blogger George Diaz for correctly summarizing my Absence of Malice piece.

I agreed with a piece Patterson titled "Absence of Malice," in which he takes Arizona Republic writer Robbie Sherwood to task for writing stories claiming Constantin Querard was being investigated by the Arizona Attorney General's Office but not providing the source.

The mainstream reporters who read my piece claimed that I was arguing that there was never an investigation. They then spent the next week arguing that an investigation indeed existed. How can the reporters misread the piece so badly while George the blogger gets it right the first time? I think it says a lot about the future of the mainstream media. (Here’s a link to the censored version.)

On the issue of the Los Abogados press release (PDF copy here), George brings new information to the debate about the degree of participation by Judge Silvia Arellano, and Judge David Talamante. We now know that they recused themselves from the vote. Well and good. However, I will stand by my original post.

If the judges on the letterhead didn't approve the statement, Los Abogados should have printed different letterhead, used the letterhead of one of the other signors, or issued a disclaimer similar to the one that George prints at the bottom each of his posts.

I'm always intrigued when a reporter throws in a "fact" with no attempt to back it up. This is from a Business Journal article about Napolitano addressing the AFL/CIO.

GOP state Senate President Ken Bennett is the current frontrunner to take on Napolitano next year.

Really? I mean shouldn't he, like you know, announce he's running before the Business Journal declares him the frontrunner?

We are already on a roll and I want you to be a part of my campaign for Governor from the very beginning.

I will be having three (3) informal open houses in the Phoenix metropolitan area at "Weather & Coffee" to meet with you personally, brief you on our progress, talk with you about how you can help (painlessly) and enjoy a very special new establishment, "Weather & Coffee" which is owned and operated by none other than Attorney Ann Phillips and her hubby, TV and radio personality and former State Senator Ed Phillips. "Weather & Coffee" is very conveniently located right at the Bell Road exit of State Route 51 . . . just minutes from anywhere in the Valley. Swing by for ten minutes or stay the entire time.

And relax, I will be participating in the "Clean Elections" program so the worst that can happen financially is a very minor dent in your pocket book. We will have petitions and clean elections 5$ contribution forms available. We will also have voter registration forms for our Democrat and unregistered friends so they can register as Independents to vote in the Republican primary.

We will be having similar open houses in Pima County and other key spots during August and early September weeks.

“In his latest paean to government economic planning (‘Ireland could teach us a lot,’ Viewpoints, August 7), Arizona Republic columnist Jon Talton argues that Ireland’s ‘famous low taxes’ are not the cause of Irish prosperity in recent years. His proof? ‘The Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent is well above Arizona's rate of 6.969 percent.’

What Talton failed to understand is that corporations in Arizona face an average combined national and state tax rate of 42 percent. That’s over three times as high as Ireland’s rate of 12.5 percent. Indeed, the Irish rate is among the lowest for developed countries, well under the 30 percent average rate for OECD countries.

Happy Birthday to Jane Dee Hull. One of the many decent human beings whom I really ticked off during the years in which I drank way too much coffee.

However, if you look beyond the headlines, the Kids Count data add to a majority of evidence indicating that early education has little to no bearing on high school outcomes.

The federal government, in its infinite wisdom, decided after the 9/11 attacks that airline passenger screeners should be federal employees instead of private workers. This would make us more secure, they said.

The Transportation Security Administration used private contractors to hire this force of 60,000 new civil servants to meet a deadline of Nov.19, 2002. Now it appears that some of the subcontractors for this $741 million contract, awarded to England based NCS Pearson Inc. (now called Pearson Government Solutions), billed them for $303 million in unsubstantiated spending.

If you are looking for my response to the Yellow Sheet Report on the Absence of Malice, click here.