Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

Democratic Wags Like Me Are "Pullen" for a Randy Victory

2007-01-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

A Republican told me (yeah, they still talk to me. I must be too easy on them) to watch for attendance at tonight's Chairman's Dinner that the Republican Party puts on before their State Convention. Some big donors and firms that usually buy whole tables are now only buying a ticket or two. The word is that this is happening because these folks want to show their support for the party, but are reluctant to shell out a lot of cash because they are worried that Randy Pullen will be in charge after this weekend. It's this sort of thing that makes Democratic wags light candles and say Novenas for a Pullen victory Frankly, I think we on the asinine side (and I mean that in the biological sense) win in either case. Pullen's opponent and establishment candidate Lisa James can only, at best, promise the same team of consultants, retainers and toadies that lost them the Governor's race, two congressional seats and seven seats in the legislature. Even with a promise of more of the same missteps that made people like me, Lofty Donkey and Wactivist chuckle at their ineptitude, it just won't be as much fun with James in charge. Pullen, on the other hand, promises a whole new world of comedy: a party run by folks like Phil Mason, whose "help" getting Pullen elected to the RNC over Mike Hellon is still clouded in controversey, and intrepid RINO hunter Rob Haney will give people like me a field day. The irony of folks like Haney, whose demands for ideological purity would make Tomás de Torquemada blush, backing a guy like Pullen, a former donor to Democratic candidates and rather recent convert to the conservative cause, seems to be lost on large swaths of the Republican activist community. I was asked to endorse Pullen by a Republican wag. What? And ruin my objectivity?

Democratic Establishment to Delegate Wannabes: Wait Your Turn, Kids

2007-01-26T06:26:00.000-07:00

A bit of a scuffle is brewing between the Young Democrats of America and the Democratic National Committee. The YDA is asking the DNC to, gasp, follow their own charter when it comes to having a delegation that looks like the Democrats from the state that selected it. A bit of background here: back in 1974, when the whole delegate selection process was revamped, the DNC adopted new language in their charter that set goals, but not quotas, for minorities and women. This language was later amended in 1976 to include youth. Chris Gallaway, YDA President, found this language in the charter when he was developing a plan to get more young people to the next convention. He also found out that unlike the other affirmitave action goals, the one regarding youth was never enforced and state parties were not directed to follow it. So, Gallaway contacted the Democratic National Committee (his letter here) and made his case. The DNC responded that sure, we have that language in the charter (letter here), but it doesn't count because in 1980, we passed a reolution on delegate selection that doesn't include youth. Of course, a resolution doesn't override the charter (and would in few organizations), especially just because of something that wasn't included. Gallaway rightly points out that the youth vote is critical to the Democratic party (John Kerry would have won overwelmingly if only people under 35 voted). Unsaid is that many Democratic campaigns would be unimaginable without younger activists (especially the 2004 campaign of current DNC Chairman Howard Dean). But, some states continue to elect delegations that don't reflect this reality. Gallaway and the YDA are calling for a e-mail campaign. You can visit a special web page they have set up with plenty of information on the dispute, contact details for the relevant DNC members, and an online petition. We in Arizona have been lucky on this score. As long as I have been active, we have elected a pretty sizeable share of younger delegates. I was elected as a youngin' (by YDA's definition) three times, my youngest as a 26 year old (and I wasn't the youngest in that delegation). Also, our last delegate selection rules were written by Alexis Tamerón, who is now Vice-President of the YDA. Needless to say, "youth" was included among the affirmative action goals. I can't remember if it was 1996 or 2000, but in that year a reporter asked me about the number of younger delegates, and told me that the youngest Arizona delegate for the Republicans was 40. The irony for me is that the very folks that this rule was written for, young activists that cut their teeth on the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60's and 70's, are now the ones that don't think it's that important. The co-chairs of the Bylaws committee are, of course, boomers. NB - Three NBs, actually. In the past, when the enforcement of the "youth" provision has been in question, the response has sometimes been that it will interfere with other affirmative action goals. As if youth can't fit into other "categories." Our younger delegates have included Hispanics, Native Americans and African Americans. In fact, our youngest delegate in 2000 was an African American. I always here complaints from older activists that we elect younger delegates and never see them again. This can also be said of older delegates that we elect as well, but somehow it's more noticed with younger folks. I remember this one woman that we elected as our delegation chair back in 1992, 35 years old. What ever happened to her? One disturbing trend I've seen in recent years is the free use of "strikes." The campaigns are allowed to strike delegates if they don't feel they represent the campaign. This was used sparingly until 2000 (I asked Martin Bacal about it once, and he only could remember one instance of a delegate candidate being struck). In 2000, the Al Gore campaign attempted to strike nearly all the delegate candidates, leaving only the number necessary to fill the slots. There was a revolt against this decision, and they relented. This was done by the Gore campaign in many states. In 2004, the Kerry campaign outsourced this right to state party staffers and once again, there were enough strikes that there was no actual vote for the Kerry delegates at the state convention that year (the state party asked to be able to do this to Clark delegation, and they Clark campaign refused). The 2004 strikes were done regardless of actual support for the candidates that these folks were supposed to represent. With this sort of thing going on, what is the point in recruiting younger people to run for delegate?

Wow, I Can't Come Up With a Clever Title At All

2007-01-25T19:28:00.000-07:00

A correspondent alerted me to a site on Cafe Press called Sinema's an Idiot. It's run by a guy named Buffalo Rick, who is a cowboy comedian, western musician and anti-immigration activist. He adopted the name "Buffalo," no doubt, to show his credentials as a true Arizonan...even though buffaloes haven't been native to this area since the close of the last ice age. Anyhow, the page treats us to this wonderful introduction:

The New American Revolution will expose every lousy, bonehead that has helped put America on the downhill slide into a third world HELL HOLE! STOP THE MADNESS! STAND UP FOR AMERICA, OR LOSE IT! Know another Traitor? Contact us at: buffalorick@mac.com to report these slimy bastards!

Wow, more calm reasoned rhetoric from the anti-immigration side. I can't imagine why anyone would think that this crowd has anything to do with the bizarre threats being e-mailed to Kyrsten Sinema's office. Anyway, you can order a coffee mug with the logo "Kyrsten Sinema: Product of a Failed Education System." Hmm, Sinema is a lawyer, legislator, community leader and talk show host. Yeah, her education certainly failed her. I guess if her parents had school vouchers or something, she could have gotten a career, I dunno, doing puerile comedy and badly performing Tex Ritter songs. Oh, you can also buy a shirt that says Goofy Gallardo. Really, this is no worse than what his friends call him. There is also a shirt that calls Alfredo Guitierrez a Nazi. Given some of the rhetoric the underside of the anti-immigration movement engages in, I'd be careful throwing the word "Nazi" around so easilly guys. And, of course, anti-Hillary Clinton shirts are available. -YAWN- Say, my brother signs on to these bills that Gallardo and Sinema write that seems to get the dander up of these folks. Where is the love? Or hate, or whatever it is.

I'm Not Ashamed of My Lesbian Daughter, Just Don't Bring Her Up.

2007-01-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Wolf Blitzer interview with Vice President Dick Cheney:

Q: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter Mary, she's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby. You're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting, for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family:
"Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father, doesn't mean it's best for the child."
Do you want to respond to that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don't.
Q: She's obviously a good daughter --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren.
And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.
Q: I think all of us appreciate --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think you're out of -- I think you're out of line with that question.

I'm just curious, did Cheney call any of the self-appointed moral guardians who pontificated on his daughter's situation "out of line"? Or is that sort of thing reserved for members of the press and Democratic Vice Presidential nominees?

Nothing, But Still...

2007-01-24T16:53:00.000-07:00

Here's the story as told to me by Barrett Marson, spokesman for the House Speaker: suspicious packages were sent to four members, Eddie Farnsworth, Adam Driggs, Ben Miranda and Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema, understandably spooked by the numerous threatening e-mails she's recieved over a bill she's sponsoring that labels groups like the Minutemen domestic terrorists, called the Capitol Police. Miranda, who has not signed on to the bill, also contacted the Capitol Police after recieving a package. The packages, as it turned out, were pages and pages of court documents from a self-styled "sovereign citizen" in Casa Grande who is out to prove that the State of Arizona has no legal authority over him. The four members may have been chosen because they are all part of the House Judiciary Committee. Although the packages were bizarre, they turned out to be quite harmless. Thank God for that.

Breaking: Arizona House of Representatives Evacuated

2007-01-24T15:02:00.000-07:00

The Arizona Capitol Times is reporting that the State House of Representatives has been evacuated due to two suspicious packages recieved by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema has recieved a number of threatening e-mails after she sponsored a bill limiting the activities of anti-immigration vigilantes.

Knaperek: It Wasn't Me, It Was All Pullen

2007-01-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

According to the folks over at Sonoran Alliance, the latest jab at Randy Pullen comes from former State Representative Laura Knaperek. Once again this goes back to the $100 contribution that Pullen gave to Harry Mitchell, then a candidate for State Senate. If you buy into Knaperek's theory, that contribution to Mitchell led to a series of events that enabled Mitchell to defeat J. D. Hayworth and resulted in Republican legislative losses in the area this year. Given that Pullen gave a comparatively small contribution to Mitchell years and years ago, and that he hasn't done that since, I guess this must be the political equivalent of the "butterfly effect." Pullen's contribution led not only to Mitchell and David Schapira being elected, recent gains by the Canadian Liberal party in local elections and probably the current tension between Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin as well. You may have noticed that Knaperek is a "former" representative, and apparently she is looking for someone else to blame for her loss. As Tempe became more Democratic, she continued to vote down the line with the leadership and refused to see what was coming. That's Pullen's fault though. Knaperek seems to have developed a habit of blaming others for her political decisions. The Pullen faithful are rightfully indignant about the attacks over a paltry $600 in contributions given nearly ten years ago before he was an active Republican. However, I think they have only themselves to blame for this. You've got people like Rob Haney and his "purer than thou" crew supporting Pullen. Heck, Haney doesn't even consider John McCain a real Republican for God's sake. As long as your folks are demanding ideological purity, you've got to expect the other side to ask for it from you too.

Papas con Kielbasa

2007-01-24T06:57:00.000-07:00

I never follow Phoenix city council races, but a corresponent up there in the Valley of the Yakes sent me some information on a certain Michael Nowakowski who is running up there. I don't know much about him, but one thing is obvious: He's a Polish-Mexican like me. For once, I can engage in genuine ethnic solidarity! Nowakowski has been general manager at Radio Campesina for a couple of years and had also done work for the Diocese of Phoenix. His website boasts of membership on a number of community boards. He doesn't have an easy race. He will be running against Laura Pastor, who's father represents the area in Congress. I've been told that he is a fan of the Guadalajara Chivas. I'll try not to hold that against him. So, that's the team for the Mexican part, what about the Polish part? ŁKS Łódź? Powodzenia and buena suerte, Michael. NB - This is more common than you might think: the attempt by the Mexican government to poplulate Texas and New Mexico in the early 19th Century didn't just recruit Americans, but emissaries were sent to areas like Bavaria, Bohemia and Poland (they wanted Catholics) to offer land to families that were willing to, in essence, "homestead" these areas. A book was released on the subject in the mid-1990's called Poles in the Southwest. Also, discrimination against Poles by their Russian overlords sent many of them packing to various nations, including Mexico.

More "Wisdom" From the Aptly Named Mike Barnicle

2007-01-23T21:34:00.000-07:00

I suppose I should appreciate Mike Barnicle's writting, but he sucks as a political commentator. His recent turn as a sub on Hardball was untouched by any knowledge of American political life and the inept questions almost ventured into territory previously explored by The Chris Farley Show. His political commentary gives us such "gems" as this, posted on MSNBC's Hardblogger site during the State of the Union address:

Math has never been my strong suit. And I have difficulty balancing my check book. But you don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out that A. Nancy Pelosi's outfit cost more than the average American paid for their first home and B. there is a pretty high degree of difficulty involved in balancing the federal budget yet the leader of the free world just told us, "We can do so without raising taxes." And half the people in the hall - Bush's half -stood and cheered.

Point taken on balancing the budget, but why the swipe at Pelosi's dress? Apparently, producers at MSNBC thought that the dress comment was insightful enough for their "crawler" and ran it several times without the accompanying comment about balancing the budget. I'm not one to seek out sexism all the time, but this sounds dangerously like the porcine breed that was known back in the 70's as the "MCP" is rearing it's ugly head here. I suppose that Barnicle would have us believe that Dick Cheney, sitting next to Pelosi in his own expensive suit, bought his clothes with one of those vouchers they give homeless folks over at the Jackson Center. Jackass.

An Elephantine Struggle: James v Pullen, Part IX

2007-01-23T17:49:00.000-07:00

As a snarky Democratic activist, I love the struggle for the Republican Party Chairmanship. Ours turned out to be so darned dull. I mean, Randy Camacho got elected to a lower office and is singing David Waid's praises now. What fun is that? A Republican State Committeeman has a choice on Saturday: either Lisa James, who promises to keep the same cadre of consultants and hangers on that have lost them two governor's races in a row or they can choose Randy Pullen, a man who seems bound and determined to alienate large parts of both the fundraising base and the electorate. I love it! The latest salvo is a series of e-mails between Nathan Sproul, the, um, ahem, controversial Republican consultant, and Pullen. Sproul's problem with Pullen goes back to 1998, when Pullen gave donations to both Paul Johnson and Harry Mitchell. The e-mails have been posted over at Espresso Pundit, and they were quite the thing to read among Republican muckety mucks today. As usual, the problem here isn't so much the initial "scandal," such as it is, but Pullen's lame attempt to spin out of it. First, he claimed that he did this on behalf of his employer (his employer: Pullen & Co.), then he claimed that he had to do it as a lobbyist. That would make sense if he gave to both candidates in these races, but he didn't, and one of those contributions was to Johnson, a candidate without a chance in hell of winning that year. Now, his latest excuse is that he raised $2,000,000 for the Republican party, so that makes it okay. Sproul disputes this in his e-mails and alleges that Pullen had to be replaced by Jordan Rose, who oddly enough was in the University Democrats with me way back when. The responses to Sproul's allegations are interesting as well. A fella named Tim (named, no doubt, for the classic Replacements album) wrote:

Of course, working literally next door to Lisa James and working with her (allegedly and not depending on the media account) on various campaigns and relying on fat contracts from the State Party might, just might, require some of us to question his motives.

Da-ha-ha-ang! It is hard for me to judge from out here who is actually winning, although one Republican blog claims that they have a count showing Pullen slightly ahead. Please, guys, keep this up. And don't stop after Saturday either...

That Roy Warden, Persecuted Again for Exercising his Right to Threaten People

2007-01-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

Most of you, no doubt, have heard the news that Roy Warden was given three years probation for assault and intimidation for an incident back in June when he burned a Mexican flag in front of the Mexican consulate. Apparently this liberal activist judge did not agree with Warden's novel legal theory that attacking someone and threatening to shoot a child is covered by the First Amendment. Someone must have gotten to him. The judge suspended most of Warden's fine, so it was reduced to $300. Warden's attorney, Gary Kreep (I am not making that name up), claims that Warden is indigent and can't pay the fine. I bet Warden would have a decent job, if only someone hadn't given it to one of them Messicans. Obviously, the judge fails to see that the probation, which enjoins him from going to any public demonstration, keeps Warden from doing his important work. Maybe Warden can pay someone to shout threats into a bullhorn and burn Mexican flags. I'm trying to think of a group of people that would be willing to do the work cheaply...

Lori Oien Demonstrating the Creativity and New Ideas That We Need On the City Council

2007-01-23T07:07:00.000-07:00

Rodney Glassman's campaign sent out an e-mail to his supporters on January 4th. It was a typical fundraising e-mail with some biographical details plus a "why Rodney will win" bit. Then, it ended with:

Please print the attached contribution form that you also need to complete and mail to me. If you have a spouse, partner or friends that you feel might also participate please share this email with anyone you would like (please forward this email with your own special note and get involved in this campaign). You may also visit our campaign website at www.rodneyglassman.com (which should be launched by the end of the week). Rodney will not let us down and so I hope you will consider joining me in helping him win election! We are trying to raise money as quickly as possible so please send your contribution today! Thanks in advance and Happy New Year!

Lori Oien's campaign sent out an e-mail to her supporters on January 16th. It was a typical fundraising e-mail with some biographical details plus a "why Lori will win" bit. Then, it ended with:

Please print the attached contribution form, complete it and mail it with your check. If you know of anyone else, that would like to participate in this election, please forward this e-mail to them, with a word of encouragement for Lori's Campaign. You may also visit her campaign website at www.lorioiencitycouncil07.com, (which should be launched soon). Lori has always been, "A Can Do Person," so I hope you will consider joining me in helping her with the Ward 2 seat! We are trying to raise funds quickly so please mail your contribution today.

Not the worst case of plagiarism ever, I'll admit. Think about this for a second though: Glassman's e-mail was blasted to his friends that he's gotten through his charitable work, which means a lot of big name Republicans. So, these guys got an e-mail from Glassman, then a similar looking e-mail from Oien a week or so later. You can bet that more than a few of them would have noticed that.

Correction

2007-01-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

I wanted to correct an earlier post. A correspondent wrote to me and stated that Jonathan Paton is not, in fact, in the Green Zone, but a camp outside of Baghdad and isn't, according to the correspondent, "even allowed to look in the direction of the Green Zone." I hope that no one thought I was implying that Paton was somehow in a "safe" part of Iraq. I've got enough friends that have been over there to know that there is no such thing.

Mo Was Right About those Circular Firing Squads

2007-01-22T11:12:00.000-07:00

Back in the closing years of the last century, I was regional director for the Young Democrats of America. A month or so into my term, an e-mail hit the YDA listserv (something I started, one of the few tangible accomplishments I made during my brief brush with leadership in that group) announcing that Oklahoma was leaving their region and joining mine. No one asked me, it just happened. There was some dispute in their region about appointments to standing committees, and the Oklahomans felt jilted. They left and let it be known that they were going to force me to recind the appointments I had made to open up seats for them. I was a bit tweaked about this whole thing, so I sent an e-mail to Elizabeth Kennedy, a good friend who was Vice President of the YDA. (Always good to mention Kennedy, she had an Alabama accent that could melt steel. Still makes me a bit wobbly remembering her.) Kennedy gave me a call and said about the whole silly dust up, "How many Democrats will this elect?" Good point. I was reluctant to write about the Seven Against Lopes crack up in the Democratic caucus. For one thing, there are still people who think that my brother somehow directs all that I write on here (and a few who still think he writes this stuff. Just so you all know, Tom is actually illiterate. It's a shame my family has to bear.). The last thing I wanted to do was throw hexane on this little conflagration and have people think he had something to do with it. I've known many of the details about this for a week or so (many of them not from my brother or any other Democrat at all, but from a Republican staffer, oddly enough), but it didn't seem to be prudent to write about it. Well, now it has made Espresso Pundit and the Star (Gawd, scooped by Greg Patterson and Daniel Scarpinato, too bad my oven is electric). For those of you who don't know the story, several members of the House Democratic caucus (Seven according to Patterson, Scarpinato only has six and doesn't list Dave Bradley) are staging a sort of slow motion coup d'etat against minority leader Phil Lopes. The initial event that allegedly triggered this was dissatisfaction with some committee assignments, and several members chose to bypass Lopes and go to Speaker Jim Weiers. There was also a small blow up over seating arrangements. Always a critical issue, those seating arrangements. The thing that disturbs me most about this incident is that it seems to be about nothing more than personality. Let's say, for example, that Jack Brown led a rump group of conservative Democrats that tried to upend things. It would tick me off, and I would write about it, but at some level it would make sense. There seems to be no ideological bent here: Lopes's leadership team includes Brown, and he counts among his allies the very liberal Kyrsten Sinema. If you can't fit comfortably between Brown and Sinema, chances are, you ain't a Democrat. The rebels are pretty spread out on the spectrum too. Given this, it is hard to see how this is about policy or ideology. I don't know what exactly this accomplishes to move the agenda of either the caucus or the rebel members. Patterson supposes over at his blog that the seven members have agreed not to help Lopes if he tries to override the speaker's actions. No one that I have talked to has seen this letter that the seven allegedly signed, and I would hope such a thing is not true. If it is, it seems a high price for the Democratic agenda to pay just so a few folks can snag nice committee assignments. I can understand making a move like this if it advances an issue that is important to you. For example, one of the people in this group is Linda Lopez. She's had a bill that she's tried to push over the last couple of sessions on right-to-die, an issue that is, understandably, close to her heart. For all of her struggling, the bill has had only one hearing in four tries to get it heard. She is introducing it again this session. Does it get a hearing this time, or was the only demand for the committee assignments? If this issue, very important to her, gets a hearing, than this may have been shrewd on her part. I have my doubts, and in the end, it may not look like they accomplished much with this bargain. Patterson has a good read over on Espresso Pundit, and it is borne out by conversations that I have had with legislators. He posits that the Heptarchy may have overplayed their hand and if the leadership vote were held today, Phil Lopes would probably be even stronger than he was when he only beat Linda Lopez by a single vote last month. There is also some talk that a few of the members of this group are starting to regret starting this whole bruhaha. What saddens me is that we Democrats made great gains in this last election and are only a few votes shy of power. The Democrats are in a position to assert themselves, as long as their first impulse isn't to go after each other. This is not a very good way to show the public that we deserve to be in charge.

Jim Pederson and Terry McAuliffe Walked in on What?

2007-01-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

The Hotline has a preview of former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe's book, What a Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators, and Other Wild Animals. In it, apparently, we get a mention of our own former Democratic Chairman, Jim Pederson. Far better for you to read it yourself. Who is coming up with McAuliffe's book titles, Fiona Apple?

Some Comments on Saturday

2007-01-22T07:15:00.000-07:00

I expected that David Waid would win. Before the meeting, I would have said that a decisive win would have been 65% or so. Waid won with a ridiculous 86% of the vote. I don't know if this means that there wasn't as much enthusiasm from the new progressive wing about Randy Camacho as had been reported, or if maybe his odd speech lost him support, who knows? Jeff Latas ran for Senior Vice Chair. He lost, but got many more votes for that slot than Camacho did for chair. I don't know if this was due to Pima County supporting one of our own (although Ken Smith, a former Pima County activist who moved to Pinetop was also running), or if, like I said before, the enthusiasm for Camacho wasn't there among the new progressives. Camacho's speech was very strange. He had an awful lot of fluffy rhetoric (including quoting Alfred Tennyson or was it Jane Tennyson?), but not one word about his program. I suppose it could be argued that his "30/15/8" plan was available on his website and was detailed in the mailing he sent, but this was a chance to close the deal and he didn't take it. Waid, on the other hand, gave a dry recitation of what the party has done over the last year or so. Whatever the reasons for Camacho's low vote total, I think that it indicates that the new progressive wing of the party needs to do more work to reach out to the rest of us. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with Waid, but Camacho's folks didn't spend an awful lot of time working outside of the various DFA and progressive organizations to push these people to their side. Donna Branch-Gilby was elected First Vice Chair, which once again gives Pima County a voice on the DNC which we haven't had since Martin Bacal was defeated in 2004. Former Baja Arizonan Ken Smith was elected as Senior Vice chair. Smith was part of a reform group on the Amphi School board that helped clean up the cronyism that had been going on there, and his wife was part of the Tortolita town council during that rump town's entire legal existence. We need those two trouble makers back. In other races, Latas and Camacho both were elected to the copious 2nd Vice Chair offices. Other interesting names were Tony Gonzales, a young activist from Flagstaff and Jo Kelleher. Interestingly, there is also a Jo Kelleher in Ireland who is a nurse and elected official. Ireland's Kelleher is a member of the Fine Gael party and ran her last race for Passage West/Monkston Town Council on an anti-incineration platform. I left early (Tucson was playing Phoenix in Roller Derby, I have my priorities), but Pima County's anti-war resolution hit the floor after I left. National Committeewoman Janice Brunson spoke against it. She said that people would think that Democrats were crazy if it passed. Someone pointed out that surveys show that nearly 70% of the people want an end to the war. "Are 70% of the American people crazy?" "Yes," Brunson responded. For all of the problems I have with Brunson, she has been able to really keep in close touch with a pretty sizeable group of Democratic activists. With that though, she lost the room. Lucky for her, her office wasn't up on Saturday.

Results from Leadership Races

2007-01-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

I need to run some errands, so I will give y'all more details later. Here are the folks that won yesterday: Chair- David Waid (Maricopa) First Vice Chair- Donna Branch-Gilby (Pima) Senior Vice Chair- Ken Smith (Navajo) Vice Chairwomen- Sharon Covey (Cochise), Lois Pfau (Maricopa), Jo Kelleher (Coconino) Vice Chairmen- Tony Gonzales (Coconino), Randy Camacho (Maricopa), Jeff Latas (Pima) Seceretary- Judy Kennedy (Maricopa) Treasurer- Rick McGuire (Maricopa) Affirmative Action Moderator- Michael Williams (Maricopa) Educational Coordinator- Anne Greenberg (Maricopa)

Republican Establishment to Iraq Vet: Wait Your Turn, Son

2007-01-21T10:02:00.000-07:00

Republican mahouts are already working behind the scenes to avoid the divisive primary that they feel cost them Southeastern Arizona's District 8 seat. The current rumor is that fundraisers and kingmakers have made up their minds that newly elected Senate President Tim Bee will be the candidate, and have been working Rep. Jonathan Paton, currently on active duty in Iraq, to tell him that this isn't his time yet. The folks that told me about this haven't told me exactly how Paton gets worked over by Jim Click while he's in the green zone, but this is what they tell me. Lt. Paton, by the way, has sent a Mesopotamian missive to Espresso Pundit that you may want to check out. Paton would be an interesting candidate. There has been a great deal of buzz over the last year or so about candidates like Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy and Paul Hackett who were Iraq vets. All seemed to be Democrats. Even a political geek like me is hard pressed to think of a Republican Iraq veteran (at least of this more recent conflict) that has run for congress. Paton has the distinction of running against Gabrielle Giffords once before, in a State House race in what was then District 13. This fact probably isn't brought up much since he placed fourth behind Giffords, Carol Somers and Ted Downing. Whether these moves actually result in Bee walking through the primary unmolested is still up in the air. The folks that are apparently trying to clear the field for him are some of the same people who backed Steve Huffman in this last race. They would have little sway over the more conservative elements in the party who feel that Huffman's backers ruined Randy Graf's shot at congress. Also, these aren't people who would have much sway over Ray Carroll, a popular maverick who's term on the Pima County Board of Supervisors is up in 2008. CORRECTION: I was mistaken in my assertion that Lt. Paton was in the so-called Green Zone. A correspondent pointed out to me that Paton "isn't even allowed to sniff the green zone." I'm assuming that this means he is outside of Baghdad.

There's Still Time!

2007-01-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

I didn't get one, but apparently there is an e-mail sent by Randy Camacho denying the anti-gay rumors that are allegedly being spread by supporters of David Waid. I don't know exactly what is going on among the Maricopa County activists, but the only reason I have heard about this rumor is because of the denials from Camacho supporters. Given this, it doesn't smack to me of an organized effort from the higher echelons of the Waid campaign. An e-mail also went out from newly elected Pima County chair Vince Rabago in support of Waid. I will be going up today...and I'll be carrying a proxy. This makes me twice the kingmaker. There is still time for the candidates to beg me for support, and I do take bribes.

Something I've Been Meaning to Write About

2007-01-19T07:12:00.000-07:00

Many of you have probaly read about Virginia Delegate Frank D. Hargrove Sr., who told an African American who was supporting a resolution apologizing for slavery to "get over it." I hear this sort of thing from many white southerners when people bring up the past. In one of Ed Bradley's final stories, he travelled to Mississippi to talk about the reopening of the Emmett Till case. Over and over again, he encountered whites who kept saying, "That's the past, and there is no need to open up old wounds." Okay, I can see where people would get frustrated when they keep hearing about issues that seem to have been settled years or even generations ago. I understand the desire to move on. But, I'd be more willing to entertain pleas from white southerners that their black neighbors move on, if they themselves had moved on. Take a look at Hargrove's own state. Up until 1997, the state song was "Carry Me Back to Old Virginia," a song where the narrator, a newly freed slave, is nostalgic for his days of bondage. The move by the legislature to ditch the song (Hargrove himself was there at the time; I don't know how he voted) is still controversial today. You can't have a candidate debate, particularly in a Republican primary, without a question about the display of the Confederate battle emblem. Former Governor and Senator George Allen felt the need to surround himself with all sorts of Confederate nostalgia as if his great-grandaddy fought at Antietam, despite the fact that his father was from Union state Michigan and Allen grew up in California. Southern blacks watch as symbols of the segregationist and even slave past of their region are innocently celebrated as "heritage" on a regular basis. Not that I am in any position to make deals on the part of the African-American community, but I'd bet that they will "get over" their past as soon as a majority of the Southern white community gets over theirs.

"I'm Art Buchwald, and I Just Died"

2007-01-19T06:18:00.000-07:00

Political humorist Art Buchwald has died. Last year, he decided to forgo dialysis and his doctors gave him only five weeks to live. Well, he hung on for much longer and was able to even tape his own eulogy (the first line is quoted above). He had been asked if there was anything that he was sorry he was going to miss. His answer: he was jealous that the rest of us will get to enjoy global warming.

More Fun in the Race for Republican Chair

2007-01-19T05:39:00.000-07:00

The best part about the race for chair on the Republican side is that they hold their election a week after we do, so I get to make fun of them for seven days after our bloodletting is done. One of the things you'll hear from the conservative activists that support Randy Pullen is that their man is a more "pure" conservative, more Republican in every thought, deed and external organ than that Lisa James and that "RINO" John McCain. Pullen's detractors have been labeling him an opporitunist who only recently donned the cloak of a "true Republican." Well, the boys over at Politico Mafioso have found something interesting. Back in 1998, Pullen gave to Democrats Paul Johnson and Harry Mitchell. Pullen has come up with the lame excuse that his employer made him give. His employer: Pullen and Co. The funny thing was, these were the only contributions that Mr. Republican gave to Arizona candidates that year. I suppose that such a thing could understood since this happened nine years ago and before Pullen was an active Republican, but this guy represents the "litmus test" wing of the party. Had this been any one else, he and his supporters would be screaming "RINO" before the ink dried on the checks. If this burries his candidacy, he has his own rhetoric to blame. I love this stuff. Keep it up guys.

No or Something

2007-01-18T20:04:00.000-07:00

The Weekly ran an item in yesterday's Skinny that named Adelita Grijalva as a possible candidate to run in Ward 1. One of the publishers of the old New England Revolution fanzine Pictures of Chairman Mao had a word for such things: Rumpswab. I decided not to call Grijalva herself, since she just had a baby and is probably a wee bit busy, doncha think? Definitely too busy to be running for City Council. But I talked to several people close to her and the consensus was that she'd be a great candidate and a great councilmember, but she ain't running. Not even considering it. One of the things that has ginned up speculation is that no one has pulled packets to run in Ward 1. No Democrat, no Republican, no Libertarian. Even the old Anti-Masonic party hasn't thrown in. No candidate has pulled a packet, including incumbent José Ibarra. We political observers abhor a vacuum, and any sign, no matter how weak, that there may be one leads all of us to make up all sorts of things. Let's see, who else lives in that ward? Paul Eckerstrom? Peter Hormel? Odie Mae Elliot? Oh yeah: Al Perry...

I Got Me A Mailer...Two Even!

2007-01-18T11:20:00.000-07:00

I finally recieved a mailer from Randy Camacho. I thought it was a bit unusual since it contained what was essentially a very wordy palm card, rather than a letter, detailing his 30/15/8 plan. I suppose that the card contained the same information that would be in a "Dear Democratic Friend" letter anyway. It just lacked that personal touch and warmth that a mass produced letter with a Xeroxed signature would have had. I also recieved another letter in support of David Waid. This one was signed (Xeroxed, of course) by the complete Democratic College of Cardinals: Janet Napolitano, Terry Goddard, Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor. As I have noted before, there has been some tension within this group over past and potential resource and staffing decisions made by Waid, but these have either been resolved, or they have agreed to resolve them later. State Committee members in Maricopa County recieved an e-mail from newly installed Maricopa County Headman Mark Manoil and immediate past chair Judy Kennedy endorsing Waid. The e-mail also included endorsements from past and present district chairs and other long time activists including Aaron Jahneke and Lois Pfau. All told, the e-mail lists 25 Democratic królewięta, which makes one wonder how many people were left to mail to.

Some Facts Behind the "Straw Poll" that John McCain "Lost"

2007-01-18T06:25:00.000-07:00

There has been a bit of buzz about a straw poll among Maricopa county Republicans that showed John McCain coming in fourth place behind Duncan Hunter (don't worry, no one else has heard of him either), Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Gosh, how did our own US Senator do so poorly? How did a rather obscure US House member from California beat him and other more famous contenders? (Newt Gingrich? R Cubed Quiz: Name another person first named "Newton" who made a try at a presidential nomination.) Well, it's easy to do if you set the rules. The "straw poll" was, to put it charitably, less than formal even by the loose standards that the term "straw poll" implies. Apparently, Rob Haney, a Republican activist that has become famous for being the guy that wants to ruin McCain's chances at the nomination, handed out "ballots" to folks at the Maricopa County Republican meeting last week. Candidates on the "ballot" were listed as "acceptable" and "unacceptable," and the ballots were, according to some witnesses, selectively distributed. This wasn't done as any official part of the meeting, and there was no previous notice that it was going to occur. By the way, Hunter, who is supported by Trent Franks, was at the meeting and was able to personally work the delegates. This victory will help him come out on top in that "Obscure House Members Who Have No Chance of Winning" Primary over Tomás Tancredo and Ron Paul. I'm no McCain fan, but this just seems ridiculous. Unfortunately, Mike Sunnucks at the Buisiness Journal swallowed this as an official slap at McCain. I don't blame him, for all he knows, there was an official vote at a meeting. I wouldn't doubt that Haney's folks presented it that way. Straw polls can be useful, but in a limited way. They can tell you how much support there is within one organization or another for a candidate at best. Even at worst, a decent and honest straw poll can tell you which candidate has their act together enough to organize their supporters to attend. Interestingly, we Democrats are enjoined from doing such things (at least in Presidential races). The DNC wants to avoid the spectacle that often happens with these large straw poll extravaganzas on the Republican side. Hundreds of thousands of dollars get spent by campaigns to bus in supporters and on electioneering to win the votes of a few hundred people at what is really a fundraiser for a local party. I was in Florida on the eve of a huge straw poll in 1995, and I actually caught a TV ad run against Lamar Alexander. Yes, this was a straw poll and not the primary. In this case, this thing is barely a real straw poll. The conduct of this indicates the trouble with Haney and his crowd (and one that some activists on my side of the fence aren't immune from either), these guys keep talking only to each other and have convinced themselves that they represent the majority. Is there any serious political observer out there that thinks that John McCain will lose a Republican primary here? Heck, McCain won decisively here in 2000 despite much higher profile opposition (led by then-Governor Jane Dee Hull). These folks aren't showing any kinks in McCain's armor; they are just showing they are out of touch with most of the Republicans that they supposedly represent. R-CUBED QUIZ ANSWER: The only one I could think of is Newton Baker, who was a favorite of anti-Roosevelt forces at the 1932 Democratic convention. He didn't enter any primaries, and as far as I can tell, adopted no reptillian nicknames. I just mentioned him in an entry last week. You should pay more attention. NB - Espresso Pundit wrote about this straw poll yesterday. Geez, I seem to be agreeing with him. Don't tell anyone. Check out his take because it has generated many interesting comments.

Up and Running

2007-01-18T06:22:00.000-07:00

Ward 2 council candidate Rodney Glassman's campaign website is up and running. You can check it out here.

Giffords's Debut Speech

2007-01-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

As I wrote earlier, Gabrielle Giffords made her first remarks on the House floor last Friday. She made them during Special Orders on the topic of immigration:

(Ms. GIFFORDS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the very first time in this distinguished Chamber representing the Eighth District of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, we have made some major accomplishments this week, but one area that particularly pertains to my district and to the State of Arizona has not been addressed, and that is the crisis in illegal immigration. For too long, Congress and Washington have failed to act. We must secure the border now. My district and the State of Arizona have paid a heavy price for this burden. We know it in our schools, our hospitals and our law enforcement agencies. We must move this year with a sense of urgency to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that is tough, effective, and practical. We need to increase border security using modern-era technology, radar, drones, electronic surveillance. There must be more Border Patrol agents and more support for those Border Patrol agents. We also need tough employer sanctions for those employers who are knowingly hiring people illegally, and a guest worker program, so that people can come in and work legally, safely, and return back to their home countries. Working to pass such measures will be my priority in this 110th Congress, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle on this important issue.

As I noted before, the Arizona Democratic Party posted Harry Mitchell's coming out on YouTube. This one still hasn't been posted. Come on guys, where is the love for us Bajados?

Hrm.

2007-01-17T11:21:00.002-07:00

A quick visit to Randy Camacho's website and you may notice some changes to his endorsement list. One thing is that both Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor have disappeared from the list. Both had been touted early on as endorsers of Camacho, especially when it looked like the field would be open. Both of them have been at contentious "principals" meetings with the Governor where they voiced their dissatisfaction with some of the proposed staffing decisions of current chair David Waid. Some of these conflicts have been resolved, and that may be why the names have vanished from Camacho's list. At the top of Camacho's list is now the Progressive Democrats of America. Last week, the Maricopa County chapter and "several other progressive organizations" voted to endorse Camacho's candidacy. The press release doesn't detail who the other organizations were, and there is no sign on the Sonora Progressives website that they have taken a stand in the race. Even though many of the Sonora Progressives are campaigning for Camacho, their leaders were careful to say that the group had not endorsed, at least as of last week. I recieved an e-mail from a Camacho supporter about a rumor that Camacho was anti-gay. I had never heard such a thing but they wanted me to know that Camacho had come out against the "Protect Marriage Arizona" amendment and was even quoted in opposition in the Republic. Maybe they thought this was a rumor that would start soon? This campaign has been so low wattage that I really, really doubt it. This person thought that the rumor may have started because his brother Richard (a teacher, like his brother) had a debate on gay marriage in his class room and some of the comments around that incident might be connected to Randy. As I said, I haven't heard anyone say such a thing about Randy Camacho. All I hear about him from people is that he's a tolerant and progressive individual. I have a real hard time believing a rumor like that.

Ma, I Made the Paper...Again!

2007-01-17T11:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Tucson Citizen carried an Anne Denogean column about Sen. Jack Harper's bill to mandate that candidates for legislature must submit to a drug test upon filing. The column was inspired by my post last week about the bill, and it even quotes my witty and brilliant prose on the subject. When I make the big time, I will remember all of you, I promise. I checked out the comments; opinion seemed to be divided on the bill. A couple of them fall back on the conservative cannard that all liberals are drug users. I don't know where that comes from. When I was growing up, the only people that could afford cocaine were Republicans.

S.P.Q.U.S.A.

2007-01-17T07:28:00.000-07:00

Interesting bit in Roll Call yesterday. Should John McCain win the presidency, or even if he resigns his seat upon nomination, Governor Janet Napolitano would appoint a successor. Unlike in some states, any appointee has to be of the same party as the person they are replacing. This means that Napolitano would have to find a Republican to replace McCain. The article, which you can't read without a subscription, names some Republicans friendly to Napolitano who she might choose:

If she chose an appointee from among her Republican supporters as some insiders speculate, it's possible this individual could be drafted from her cabinet, if not the group of well-known Republicans who endorsed her 2006 re-election bid. Among them are former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods (R) and Jack Jewett (R), a Tucson businessman and longtime member of the state Board of Regents. Current elected officials who backed Napolitano last year include Flagstaff Mayor Joe Donaldson (R) and Phoenix City Councilman Tom Simplot (R). If Napolitano turned to her cabinet to replace McCain, she'd have 13 choices, including Bill Bell, director of the state administration department; Susan Gerard, director of the state Health Services Department; Don Butler, director of the state Agriculture Department; Pat Chorpenning, director of the state Veterans' Services Department; and Gale Garriott, director of the state Revenue Department.

The supposition has always been that Napolitano herself wanted to run for Senate in 2010. To make this happen, she would have to appoint someone who would be willing to step aside in 2010, something appointees have done in other states. Here is the funny part of the article (besides the soon-to-be-unemployed-under-a-Pullen-chairmanship Garrick Taylor using it as another reason to paint Napolitano as an out of touch extremist. That's why she won, I guess): the close of the article names possible other candidates should Napolitano not make a go of it:

If she doesn't run, Democratic Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raúl Grijalva, and state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) could be candidates.

My God, Gabby just got there! Give the gal a break. For some reason, Ed Pastor isn't mentioned. With all due respect to Giffords and Grijalva, the direction of politics and demographics here doesn't bode too well for a candidate from Tucson, but nice to see our folks mentioned. Actually, all three of these pols are Tucson born.

My Last Entry on the State Chair Races? Naw.

2007-01-16T05:50:00.000-07:00

Saturday I, and I'm assuming other members of the State Committee, recieved my first communication from David Waid. It was a letter detailing his accomplishments as chair including an impressive fundraising effort (four times as much as the Republican Party) and an increase in vote by mail applications by 30%. I was suprised to get a call last night from a Waid supporter, they are not taking this race lightly. I haven't heard much from Randy Camacho supporters since the Pima County convention. Perhaps they believe that they have enough votes from out of groups like the Sonora Progressives (who have not officially endorsed, but many of their members are Camacho fans), but a little reaching out beyond this base will probably be necessary. There is dissatisfaction out there from long time party activists, even those that don't identify with leftish part of the party, with Waid and some of his staffing decisions, these folks don't seem to be ready to jump yet. I don't think they will without a bit more convincing from Camacho supporters. On the other side: the Republicans are partying like it's 1999. Anyone remember the 1999 Democratic State Chair's race? Incumbent Mark Fleischer created all sorts of difficulties for some party pooh bahs, so they united in opposition to him. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't agree on a cadidate, and sent letters endorsing all three of Fleischer's opponents. This bizarre strategy didn't work for the Whigs in 1836, and it just served to make many activists think Fleischer's opponents didn't have their act together. Fleischer won on the first ballot, and fired the executive director who was popular with many of his opponents. Then the cardinals shut off the fundraising spigot. Nothing quite so strange has gone on with the Republicans yet (we still have a couple of days though), but there has been one parallel: some big time fund raisers have said that if there is a Randy Pullen victory, they will no longer donate to the Republican party. The same threat was made in '99 in case of a Fleischer win, but I don't recall it making the papers. As it did on our side in '99, this sort of strong arming will no doubt turn off some activists. A lot of talk out on these internets about whether Pullen or Lisa James is the more "pure" Republican. The assumption of many people is that Pullen's association with the anti-immigrant movement and his friendliness with some conservative activists means he is more conservative. I'd been hearing from some grumblers that Pullen only recently adopted these positions to move up in Republican politics, but I hadn't actually seen any evidence of this. Well, over at Politico Mafioso, they have revealed that Pullen's wife was a donor to WISH List. WISH list stands for "Women in the Senate and House," and it is a paler, less effective Republican version of EMILY's list. WISH list, like EMILY's list, gives to pro-choice women Republican candidates. You'd think with all those wealthy pro-choice Republicans and so few candidates to give to that they'd do better, natch. James's supporters are trying to get this one out now hoping it will make some of Pullen's social conservative base jump to their side. Polling shows that most Arizonans are pro-choice, heaven forbid the Republicans elect a chairman that knows someone that might have at one time another been pro-choice.

One Year Before

2007-01-15T07:54:00.000-07:00

This is an excerpt of a speech that Dr. Martin Luther King gave on April 4th, 1967. You can find the full text of the speech here, along with audio.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier: O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath -- America will be! Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

Mitchell Now As Cool As "Numa Numa" Guy

2007-01-14T11:02:00.000-07:00

Rep. Harry Mitchell gave his first speech on the house floor the other day, and it is now posted to YouTube. Our other newly elected representative also made her debut speech this week, but it hasn't been posted anywhere that I can find. The Arizona Democratic Party posted this video (it is the only one posted on their "channel"). I spoke to a staffer to one congressman this week who told me that they are checking to see if house rules will allow them to post videos on their own section on sites such as YouTube. This hasn't stopped both the presidential campaigns of John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Christopher Dodd from opening up their own channels and posting videos. (Edwards here, Clark here, Dodd here)

Southern Lousiana Congressman Delivers Fouetté to Lieberman

2007-01-13T18:18:00.000-07:00

I got some grief from one of my readers after a shot I took at Joe Lieberman. The poster complained that I and other posters were not recognizing the breadth of the Democratic coalition, and seemed to imply that anarchists like me were about to take the whole party down. Well, this was silly for a couple of reasons: for one thing, it wasn't that long ago that I was being eviscerated on here for supporting the supposedly more conservative candidate our local congressional primary. The other reason is that I have made it clear on a couple of occasions that my troubles with Lieberman are more stylistic than policy based (although his continuing support of the war when even Sam Brownback wants to throw in the towel is mystifying, at best), and I have worked to get many moderate and conservative Democrats elected and written positive things about them here. As I said, my problems with Lieberman have more to do with his style and methods. He seems so anxious now to show himself as a "bipartisan maverick" that he has subsummed issues that once made him at least tolerable to Democrats of all stripes. For example: many Democrats were anxious to have congressional hearings into the administration's and FEMA's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Lieberman, as chairman of the Homeland Security committee, would call and head up those hearings. No dice, said the senator to Newsweek. There are so many good reasons for a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, to give a darn about what happened and look into the failures of the federal government after Katrina. But no, our man is more concerned about his friendship with the President. By the way, he did promise to hold hearings and subpoena documents before the election. Now, it would be easy to condemn what I'm saying as some carping lefty who is complaining again about the poor, put upon Joe Lieberman. Another person taking issue with the lack of the hearings is Charlie Melancon, who is quoted on Talking Points Memo being diplomatic but displeased with Lieberman's decision. Wanna know how much of a McGovernik Melancon is? Melancon is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I did a check of Thomas and the first bill of his that came up was a sense of congress resolution advocating the public display of the Ten Commandments. Talking Points Memo has been contacting Gulf Coast Democrats, who are largely Blue Dogs, for their reactions. I imagine that we'll find that these relatively conservative members are unhappy with Lieberman as well.

The No Beckham Zone

2007-01-13T17:58:00.000-07:00

I've had a couple of people ask me, "Hey, you're a soccer fan, why haven't you said anything about David Beckham on your blog?" Well, the fact is, I have. I have two posts on Beckham playing for the Galaxy (a team I dislike that will now be even more fun to root against) over on my other blog. I try to keep this blog to politics and occasionally religion. Over at the Polish-Mexican page, I can talk about soccer, music, roller derby and what ever else I want to complain about.

That'll Show 'Em

2007-01-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

Rep. Russell Pearce has another brilliant idea that will stop all of these darned illegal aliens from crossing the border. He's got a bill, HB 2063, which would only allow the registration of a vehicle if, as the bill says, "the owner is legally present in this state." This is a good thing. I have a friend who just got back from Caborca, where there are dozens if not hundreds of pobres just waiting to cross the line and register their Hummers. Such legislation will surely keep them on their side of the line, or at least make them go to Texas. We are better off if those undocumented workers that can afford vehicles once they get here drive unregistered vehicles. Our streets are safer that way.

No Love From Nintzel...AGAIN

2007-01-13T07:08:00.000-07:00

Jim Nintzel and Saxon Burns have an item in this week's Skinny about Mark Osterloh and Jeff Latas running for the copious vice chair spots in the state Democratic party. Come on guys, I ran for vice chair three times, won twice, and you never mentioned me. I'm so hurt. And Jim, you let a Skinny item about Osterloh go by without a snarky comment about the voter lottery? You're slipping.

You've Got to Change Your Pace, I Did That

2007-01-12T15:19:00.000-07:00

Word is out that Tom Stauffer is leaving the Arizona Daily Star to become a food writer at the Tucson Citizen. When I first saw Stauffer's byline at the Star, I was a bit taken aback. I thought, "hey, is that the same Tom Stauffer that is in the Drakes with Gene Ruley?" I found out that yes, it was. Stauffer was also leader of a band called Bull Horn, an excellent but criminally unremembered Baja Arizona band in the early 1990's that released one single for a song called "Hell Mountain." (Bull Horn also featured on bass a redheaded woman named Cheri Taylor. No really good reason to mention her 'cept it gives me an excuse to remember her. Back to your regularly scheduled blog.) Interestingly, when C. J. Karamargin left the star, he became a food writer at the Citizen too. Then, he moved on to work as a press aide to Gabrielle Giffords. So, the next natural step would be to work for a member of congress. Not much chance of an opening soon though.

The "DoddPod"

2007-01-12T07:02:00.000-07:00

Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd announced his candidacy for president earlier this week. He already has a website up. I know that all of you are anxious to sign up for his campaign. Interestingly, Dodd's page boasts of links to Flikr, MySpace, FaceBook and YouTube (what, no Tribe.net?). We'll probably see more of this from the other candidates since this seems to be the lazy man's way to get to Generation Y voters. No one loves us Gen Xers any more. Another interesting thing on the page is the "DoddPod." It is a list of songs that Dodd has on his iPod and you can suggest songs. I suppose this is one way to show that Dodd is wired and hip, but does anyone under the age of fifty listen to Jackson Browne? (And I bet most of those fans, under fifty or no, spell Mr. Browne's name correctly.) There is a way for us visitors from the internet to suggest songs for his iPod. It is a good way to capture data for a e-mail list, but man, that is just asking for trouble. I mean, how many of you when you saw that feature were trying to figure out an offensive band name or song name to send him? You know that every second-rate indie band will send their songs in hopes of some modicum of recognition. It'll work out well, Dodd hasn't heard of them, and they haven't heard of Dodd. If any of you post anything on the DoddPod, tell us about it here.

Grijalva Reaction to Bush's "Augmentation"

2007-01-11T17:34:00.000-07:00

Raúl Grijalva submitted this statement to the Congressional Record today:

Madam Speaker, I believe this Congress has a mandate from the voters, to start bringing our troops home now. This is not an option to pursue at our leisure, this is a solemn obligation of absolute urgency. As we speak, preparations are being made to send more of our nation's sons and daughters to Iraq, with or without our consent, and some are already there. A headline in today's Financial Times states our predicament: "Congress is helpless only out of choice." The Constitution gives this Congress, gives this new majority, if it chooses to exercise it, the power of the federal purse. No signing statement or political calculation can erase this hard fact, and if we choose to deny that we do have this power, we do a disservice to our Constitution, our constituents, and to this body. If this new Congress does not heed the voice of the people who elected this new majority it will be a failure of our democracy, and I think the people will be appropriately discouraged by this. To ignore this mandate is to risk not just a majority, but even worse, to heighten the cynicism of our country with regard to whether we truly have a democratic, responsive government. The escalation in Iraq announced by President Bush last night will only deepen our involvement in this debacle. Ultimately, this escalation is about keeping this nation tied down in Iraq beyond 2008, because once those troops go to Iraq, the horse is out of the barn. Members of Congress that are serious about representing the will of the American people should make every effort to block this move, to pre-empt the President. The president's speech last night was disheartening and disappointing. This President is utterly indifferent to the will of the people, the Congress, or even the very same generals whose authority he has exploited to cover his own mistakes. Congress must demand a better approach that is realistic and solution based. Someone should tell the President that the dire consequences he predicts for Iraq if we should withdraw are already with us, as a consequence of his own decisions. President Bush's war of choice has created a sanctuary for terrorists. President Bush's war of choice has empowered Iran in the region. President Bush's war of choice has put American targets in front of Al-Qaeda and made their ranks overflow with new recruits. President Bush's war of choice has decimated American influence and credibility in the region and the world. Only once we have gotten our troops out of harm's way, and once we have demonstrated a commitment to make right with diplomacy and reconstruction what this President has torn asunder, can we attempt to implement the political solution among Iraqis that this crisis calls for. President Bush mentioned Iran last night in a very alarming context. In one breath he accused Iran of material participation in attacks against US soldiers, and in the next he announced the positioning of assets in the region which would enable the air strike on Iran that frightens the entire world and, I fear, seems increasingly likely. If we are serious about extricating this great nation from the regional quagmire that this President has created and that he seeks to enlarge, it seems that the time has come that we need to speak out. We need to get out of Iraq, and we need to stay out of Iran. Madam Speaker, this war is a financial, strategic and moral disaster for this nation. The military victory the President speaks of is a fantasy, but the costs to our nation and the violence in the region are real, and will only increase the longer our men and women remain in Iraq. We need to bring this sad misadventure to an end, and start bringing our troops home now. It pains me to recall that more than half the combat deaths in Vietnam came after it was already clear that the United States could not succeed. These soldiers died because the leaders of their country lacked the political courage to face reality, feared losing face, and feared admitting their mistakes. This is one of the great tragedies of our history, and we risk repeating this moral error by keeping our troops in Iraq. The American people clearly expressed their view on Iraq in the last election, and the policy still has not changed. But I still believe that the people of this country have the will and the spirit to restore true democracy to our foreign policy. I hope they will keep up this fight, because the lives of our men and women in uniform depend on it. Thank you. Madam Speaker.

Rocky Mountain High, Or Is It Oysters?

2007-01-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

Just got word from a DNC member that Denver will be the site of the next Democratic National Convention. Steve Farley will be happy to know that they have excellent transit.

Mitchell's Rookie Debut

2007-01-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

Word to C-SPAN junkies: Harry Mitchell will be making his first speech before congress today. I don't have an exact time, but it should be sometime over the next few hours. He will be speaking on funding stem cell research.

Finally, a Way to Keep Tommy Chong Out of the Legislature

2007-01-11T05:17:00.000-07:00

So, I was going to look up a bill number that I was going to write about (I'll get to it later), and instead I ran across this title: SB 1066: legislative candidates; drug test (This bill number suggests that maybe our solons are not worried about Mexican "invaders," but are out to stop the Norman ones.) You read this right, this bill would mandate drug tests for legislative candidates. You ever heard anyone tell you that you would have to be high to want to run for legislature? Well... The bill's prime sponsors are Senators Jack Harper, Linda Gray and Representative Russell Pearce. Other sponsors are Senators Ron Gould, Karen Johnson, Jim Waring and Representative Ray Barnes. In case of a gubernatorial veto of this crucial bit of legislation, the sponsors have also signed on to SCR 1005, which would be a constitutional amendment mandating a drug test that would avoid the governor's desk and go to the voters. Way back in the 80's during our first wave of drug test fever, Senator Fritz Hollings's opponent demanded that Hollings take a drug test. This happened during a debate, so Hollings turned to him and said, "I'll take a drug test if he takes an IQ test." In that spirit, let's expand this idea: maybe we can mandate that candidates take the AIMS test, maybe the new citizenship test?

The Zapp Brannigan Strategy

2007-01-10T19:42:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago, if you had asked me what to do about Iraq, I would have said something like, "I don't know, but we can't just withdraw and leave those people with this mess." I've come around to thinking that the only difference between us leaving tommorrow and us leaving a year from now is the number American soldiers that die. We didn't send enough troops in the first place (that is assuming we should have sent any at all), and now the President hopes to stanch the bleeding a bit (makes me wonder about the theory that he is only trying to delay the Hanoi moment until after he leaves office). The conduct of the post-invasion part of the war was screwed up by poor planning, wishful thinking and horrible management years ago. I'm not sure how sending 20,000 more troops into a divided nation of nearly 30 million is going to do anything to fix that. A couple of things disturbed me. Is he looking to expand the war to include Iran and Syria? It sure sounded like it. Also: did he say that American troops will be imbedded with Iraqi units? There are about 18,000 in the Iraqi army, with only 10,000, according to one study, that aren't politically tainted. How does this work? Does it encourage the Iraqis to take additional responsibilities? Will we be taking political cues from the Iraqi government, who seem to be in the sway of the Iraqi militias? NB: I've got three friends over there, and one cousin that will no doubt be going back under this plan.

Ann This Day

2007-01-10T07:11:00.000-07:00

I'm hearing more about 2008 than I'm hearing about 2007. What is up with that? I'm hearing a new bunch of murmurs. I don't entirely buy this one for reasons that I'll give you in a second. The talk is that Ann Day will run for re-election to the Board of Supervisors. She's represented District 1, which takes in the central part of the Catalina Foothills and manuevers around the Catalinas to take in Oro Valley and a big chunk of Marana's vilayets, since being elected in 1996 after a series of short-timers (Iris Dewhirst, Greg Lunn, Mike Boyd). There was speculation about Day retiring shortly after her sister stepped down from the Supreme Court. Seemed silly actually, since their circumstances are very different. Now, on to the wild speculation that I don't entirely buy: Day will get a primary challenge from Al Melvin. I can see where Melvin's wing of the party would be disatisfied with Day. Heck, just the fact that she can sit so close to Richard Elías on a regular basis and not get charged with battery would be enough to make some of them unhappy. Day is the classic, for lack of a better term, "Country Club Republican," exactly the sort that boils the blood of conservative activists. Even with this though, I don't see Melvin as the sort to want to run for supervisor. What I saw was a guy who was animated by grand ideological battles. Yes, they happen on the board too, but only as occasional breaks in between long stretches of more practical day-to-day county buisiness. I can't see Melvin as someone that would get excited about decisions like who gets a sewer contract in Avra Valley or who to hire to run the libraries. I could be wrong though, and I often am. Hasn't Melvin already told some supporters that he wants to make another go at the Senate? This isn't to say that social conservatives aren't interested in the nuts and bolts of local government here, it's just that they don't seem to run for positions in it. This isn't true in other parts of the state (Randy Pullen, popular with conservative activists, has made a run for mayor of Phoenix, for example). In both Pima County and Tucson City government, the Republicans we have elected have tended to be moderates, even liberal when it comes to social issues. You may remember that the person that took the lead on the fight over continuing to fund the Boy Scouts despite their anti-gay policies wasn't a Democrat, it was Fred Ronstadt. Despite this, I can't remember any Republican council member or supervisor weathering a primary over such things. Ray Carroll, the Baja Arizona answer to Nelson Rockefeller, has never had a primary at all. The only staunch conservative I can remember serving on the Board of Supervisors was Paul Marsh, who served one turbulent term more than a decade ago. It bears remembering that he was taken out of office in the Republican primary.

Victory, and I Don't Mean a Movie Staring Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine and Pelé

2007-01-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

Hot from SEIU and that big building downtown:

On Tuesday, January 9th, the Pima County Board of Supervisors became the first county in Arizona to allow its workers the freedom to vote to form an authorized union. “Now we want a vigorous debate among county workers about what kind of employee organization they want,” said Dave Mitchell, President of the Pima County Chapter of SEIU Arizona. “SEIU believes that better workplaces and better services go together. If employees choose SEIU, they choose not only better working conditions, but an opportunity to sit down with management and brainstorm ways to make Pima County an even better place to work and live.” The ordinance allows employees to vote in an election to choose whether or not they want an authorized union and, if they vote for a union, allows them to meet with the county and confer on wages, health care, improving services, and other issues. “All of the employees want to congratulate Board Chairman Richard Elias and County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry for working with us to make this historic step a reality,” said Mitchell. “Now we look forward to working together with the county on ways to improve the services that we provide to county residents.”

The item was passed 5-0.

Hopefully, the Last Time Pelosi Caves to These Guys

2007-01-09T07:23:00.000-07:00

So, the congress didn't do anything yesterday. Why? Because John "Merkle" Boehner just had to fly out to Glendale to watch his Buckeyes lose to Florida. Geez. We had to delay the business of congress so this guy can go to a college football game? I gotta cut Boehner a break, I mean, he's probably used to last year's two-day-a-week-and-not-even-every-week schedule. But darnit, Nancy, you should have just told him, "Gosh John, I hope we can still get a quorum." I mean, he was only there to vote "no" anyway. By the way: did Boehner sit in the stands with the great unwashed, or did he sit in a "hospitality suite"? Who paid for the suite?

Camacho on the Web

2007-01-09T07:14:00.000-07:00

I was unaware that Randy Camacho has a website up for his race for chair. Check it out. He lists Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor as supporters, as well as former Rep. John Laredo.

Happy Days Are Here Again

2007-01-08T07:25:00.000-07:00

I just finished up Steve Neal's Happy Days Are Here Again: The 1932 Democratic Convention, the Emergence of FDR - and How America Was Changed Forever. The book was published in 2004, shortly after Neal's death. One of the things that people don't realize about that convention was that Franklin D. Roosevelt nearly wasn't the nominee. He swept all but two of the primaries he entered and secured a majority of the delegates that were attending the convention. However, the Democratic party had a 2/3 rule, first put in place by Andrew Jackson. As many of the figures in the book constantly liked to note, both Champ Clark and William McAdoo walked into their conventions with majorities. I think the fact that most of you haven't heard of either Clark or McAdoo gives you a clue. Suffice it to say, the 2/3 rule saved us from being led into World War I by a president named "Champ." Roosevelt and his allies ditched the 2/3 rule shortly after he became president. The objections to Roosevelt were many. Supporters of Al Smith, a sentimental favorite of Catholics, wanted him to have another shot at the presidency. The city bosses, especially those in his own state, disliked him. Conservatives in the party, who had a lot of sway because of the 2/3 rule, distrusted him as a radical. But one that came up over and over again was Roosevelt's health. The history that we all know is that the press kept his disability a secret, but most party leaders were well aware of the state of his health. The irony, noted by Neal in the epilogue, is that Roosevelt outlived just about every one of the rivals from that convention. Two of them, former Secretary of War Newton Baker and Maryland Governor Albert Ritchie, didn't even live through Roosevelt's first term. The convention was dominated by many larger than life figures of the era: House Speaker "Cactus Jack" Garner, Louisiana Gov. Huey Long, New York Mayor and lover of chorus girls Jimmy Walker and Will Rogers as well as some colorful characters that have largely been forgotten, like the cigar chomping populist Oklahoma Governor "Alfafa Bill" Murray. The book captures the drama of the old conventions and a little bit of why the current stage managed conventions are no fun to watch anymore. Granted, there was a lot of shenanigans that we just probably wouldn't put up with anymore, such as Boston Mayor James Curley's heading up a pro-Roosevelt sham Puerto Rico delegation (in a glaring oversight, Neal never explains how this came to be) after Roosevelt was crushed by Smith in the Massachusetts primary. In another bit of chicanery, Anton Cermak, Mayor of the host city, Chicago, arranged to have McAdoo's limosine run out of gas while he was on the way to a crucial vote. These sorts of things don't happen any more because they really wouldn't effect the outcome. The outcome is determined by the primaries now, in fact, largely determined by the time that voters in less than a half-dozen states have made their voices heard. For all of the trouble with the "smoke filled rooms" and arcane procedural fights, I wonder sometimes if the current process is all that much more democratic. It certainly has been rendered less fun.

State Chair Races

2007-01-08T06:18:00.000-07:00

Both Lisa James and Randy Pullen have their sites up for their races for Republican Party Chairman. Both of them, of course, have supporter lists up. Being from Baja Arizona, I noted which Southern Arizonan's were on the lists. James features NRA chief Sandy Froman, Rep. Jonathan Paton, Rep. Jennifer Burns, Sen. Tim Bee, Mike Hellon and Margaret Kenski. Randy Pullen's includes Randy Graf and former legislative candidate Paralee Schneider. What strikes me is that Pullen's lists of Elected officials and statewide party officials only includes two people outside of Maricopa County, Schneider and Sen. Ron Gould. He does have several on his list of other Republican officers and there are probably several on his list of other State Committeemen, but unlike James, he does not give geographic cues on his. Pullen's list of state committeemen is a bit padded though, with some, like Tom Smith, Graf and Schneider, listed elsewhere. Pullen also lists himself. I don't see Lisa James on her own list. Does this mean that she is voting for Pullen? The woman doesn't deserve the chairmanship if she can't lock down her own vote! On our side, things have shifted a bit. On Saturday, I recieved what looked to be a late Christmas card. I opened it up to find out it was actually a note from Dr. Mark Osterloh, who had been talked about as a candidate for chairman. The letter instead announced that he is running for one of the Vice Chair slots. Jeff Latas, also made it clear a while back that he was also running for Vice Chair. I was a Vice Chair for four years. I hate to tell you this fellas, 'cept for the First Vice Chair (which, because of the way the rules are written, will likely have to be a woman this time, not much Latas or Osterloh can do to qualify between now and then), there are few, if any actual responsiblities or decisions to be made in these jobs. When I ran, I was hoping to use the position to help the Young Democrats with their bid for a National Convention. It turned out that the group had enough ins with the state party that they really didn't need me to help with the State Party, but just having the name on the list and the title "Vice Chair" helped give them credibility with the Young Democrats of America, who thought that the position meant something like actual power. Every chair that we have elected says that they will find a way to give some responsibilites to the Vice Chairs. Never seems to happen. Randy Camacho is still running for chair. He was handing out flyers at Saturday's Pima County Democratic Party reorganization meeting and had at least one supporter he brought from Phoenix doing the same. Camacho has also seemed to have gotten the support of the Sonora Progressives, some of whom were talking up his candidacy. David Waid, who has told party staff that he plans to run again, hasn't yet done a big campaign style move, at least none that I've seen. CLARIFICATION: Jeff Latas made an excellent point in a comment. I didn't make this clear in my post: the Sonora Progressives have not, as a group, taken a stand in the state chair race, but many of their members are supporting Camacho.

Arizona's Veteran Democrats Move Up

2007-01-06T07:47:00.000-07:00

Both Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor are now part of the Democratic Party's whip organization in the house. Pastor is a deputy whip, and Grijalva is a senior whip. I have no idea if either one of these titles comes with a badge. Pastor is close to newly elected Democratic whip James Clyburn. Clyburn has also voiced an interest in putting more minority members into leadership positions. Grijalva has also moved up from second vice-chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to first vice chair (the site has not been updated yet to reflect the new leadership). He was elected in a contentious meeting last November, where there was a revolt by nearly the entire female membership of the caucus against Joe Baca, who ran for chair. Grijalva has the respect of both sides in that still smoldering fight. Should there be more dissatisfaction with Baca (there was a fight last year over his leadership of the group's electoral arm), then look for Grijalva to move up. NB - Couple of related notes: Clyburn this week was concerned about the symbolism being handed an actual whip by outgoing Majority Whip Roy Blunt. They found a way around this though. The interesting thing about the dispute in the Hispanic Caucus is that it seems to cut down regional lines: the women angry at Baca, a Texan, are all from California except for Nydia Velázquez. The one female who supports Baca is Grace Napolitano, who represents California but was born in Brownsville. Baca has done a remarkable thing: he's got Hilda Solís, Loretta Sánchez and Lucille Roybal-Allard working together. If you don't know why that is remarkable, you haven't been following Southern California politics.

Republicans Don't Seem to be Liddy About '08

2007-01-06T06:47:00.000-07:00

Here is a question for some of my Republican posters: why hasn't Senator Elizabeth Dole been mentioned as a candidate for 2008? I ask this because I remember her being mentioned over and over again as a running mate in the late 80's and 90's, even when her husband still harbored presidential ambitions. She did try to run on her own in 2000, but she had a hard time competing for campaign money with George W. Bush and John McCain and dropped out before the first primary. All of this happened before she was even elected to public office. Now, she's actually got some experience as a Senator. You would think she'd at least be mentioned as a possible candidate just because pundits like to include a woman's name or two, but I think I've even heard Kay Bailey Hutchison's name more (and I've only heard her name once or twice). So, what is up with that?

Arizona Bill

2007-01-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

I recieved a terse, but probably deserved, e-mail about my use of Arizona Bill. I have used this character on a couple of occassions when I want to illustrate a post about the legislature. I did not give proper credit to the creator of Arizona Bill, Bob Richards. Richards was the son of a chief clerk of the Arizona House and he designed the character back in 1977 to illustrate the pamphlet "Arizona Bill: How 'Bill' Becomes Law." The pamphlet is still given away by the state legislature and is a good summary of the way our process works in Arizona. Legislative staff and leadership still think enough of the pamphlet that a *.pdf version of it is posted on ALIS, the legislative website. For those of you that don't like cartoons, a more mundane version of this, "From Idea...to Bill...to Law" was written by Senator (later Senate President) Randall Gnatt in 1995. The 2000 version is posted on ALIS as well. Like Gnatt, it is no fun what so ever.

Breaking News: Democratic Leadership Comes Out Against "Surge"

2007-01-05T11:37:00.000-07:00

This from a letter that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will soon release. Also, Oliver North has come out against the "McCain Doctrine." It worries me that I agree with North. I need to lay of the meds.

President George W. Bush The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark. The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week. Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase. Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq. In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq: “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.” Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. We appreciate you taking these views into consideration. Sincerely, Harry Reid Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi Speaker

Harper to Voters: Trust Us, We Know What We Are Doing

2007-01-05T07:07:00.000-07:00

Sen. Jack Harper is introducing SCR 1001, titled Statewide Initiatives; Legislative Consideration. It is a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would go in front of voters. The amendment would first of all remove the Latin "centum" from Article IV of the state constitution and replaced it with the more 'Merkin "cent." Oh, then it rips the heart out of the initiative process. Under the proposed amendment, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1-2 would read (the italics are the new, not so improved, language):

(2) Initiative power. The first of these reserved powers is the initiative. Under this power ten per centum cent of the qualified electors shall have the right to propose any measure, and fifteen per cent shall have the right to propose any amendment to the constitution, except that, within three years before the initiative petition is filed, any proposed measure or amendment must first be introduced in the legislature and is subject to legislative consideration and enactment.

Lovely. In other words, the people can't propose a resolution unless the legislature has proposed it first. Even better, here would be his new language in subsection 9:

...and the official text of a state measure or amendment to the constitution shall consist only of the full text of the proposition as introduced in, or as amended by, the legislature pursuant to subsection (2)...

So, not only must the initiative be something that the legislature has proposed, it must be something exactly like what the legislature has proposed. Nice. I don't know much about Harper's motives here, but this proposal demonstrates an ignorance of the history of our state's constitution and the whole purpose of the initiative process. The idea was that the people can propose laws when the legislature refuses to take any action. Saying that the legislature needs to take action first violates the reasons for having an initiative process in the first place. It also doesn't say much for Harper's respect for the voters. Harper's bill only has one co-sponsor, Majority Whip John Huppenthal, so I don't know yet if there is any actual excitement from the Republican caucus on this issue. The funny thing about it is, Republicans did pretty well with initiatives this year, anti-immigration measures that were dead when they hit the governor's desk all passed. They have been bragging about that even. This may come from anger over "liberal" measures that have passed over the last decade or so, such as medical marijuana, clean elections and the recent measure on hog farming. Near as I can tell, none of these were proposed in the legislature at all. Maybe they are looking at stopping things like this. If Harper manages to cajole enough of his fellow Senators to pass this (by the way, any Democrat that votes for this sucks and I will be happy to say so on this blog), I hope that the people see what is going on here and turn it away at the ballot box. We still have the power to strike bad constitutional amendments, Harper hasn't taken that from us yet.

Greg, I Love You, Really

2007-01-05T06:03:00.000-07:00

One of the things that makes blogging different than actual journalism is that our biases, conflicts and even personal relationships are right out there. If people read this blog, they pretty much know that they are reading a Democratic curmudgeon who was worked for, paid and unpaid, for various campaigns. That's why I found it so amusing earlier this year when I heard from some supporters of candidates, Democratic and Republican, claiming that I had some sort of "bias" against one candidate or another. Well, duh. That's why y'all read me. Given this, I have seen something interesting over at Espresso Pundit. I don't always like what I read over there, but heck, I am not supposed to. But, I still read it on a daily basis. If nothing else, it gives me something I can respond to over here when I can't think of anything else to write. As I said, I saw something interesting. I don't say "disturbing," but just goofy. Greg Patterson has an entry praising a novel by Clint Bolick, who he calls a "local attorney." Then, right next to that is an ad for the Alliance for School Choice, a group headed up by...Clint Bolick. Is this the same Clint Bolick? Look, as conflicts of interest go, this is pretty much low on the scale. It probably ranks with, I dunno, my giving away free baklava to female friends when I worked at Tork's Cafe. It is just a little strange, that's all. It is probably more a product of the main characteristic of his blog: the man is a consumate insider who is close to the Republican Intelegensia (gawd, I will never put those two words together again, I assure you!) in Maricopa county. It is a strength of his blog, but occasionally a weakness as well. Sometimes, his stuff is so insiderish that it can come off as a mash note to Republican operatives. As I said, I was struck by the juxtaposition of the ad and the entry (especially since I haven't seen Patterson review a novel before). Obviously, the fact that the Alliance for School Choice advertises at EP is probably more because Patterson was already a supporter of their cause, rather than Patterson changing his views to support them. Still, putting up the review of the novel, and not noting that the man that wrote it was an advertiser doesn't sit entirely well with me. It isn't something that I would do when I finally figure out how to get real ads up on this blog (the "Blogads" service you see above has netted me around thirty cents).

Goode to Meet You, As-salaam Alaykum

2007-01-04T11:35:00.000-07:00

Grievously stolen from Talking Points Memo: check out this video and see Rep. Virgil Goode shaking hands with Rep. Keith Ellison, a man who a couple of weeks ago, Goode all but said should be deported. No audio from their conversation, darnit. Ellison seems to be in good humor though.

¡Upale!

2007-01-04T11:10:00.006-07:00

Out with the old and in with the new (which as long-time Tucson music fans know, is the B-Side of Gila Bend's single "Cantankerous"): J. D. Hayworth's creepy talking website is down. Jim Kolbe's website is now just a memory. One can always check the Wayback Machine and see Kolbe's pages from those thrilling days of, uh, three or four years ago. Harry Mitchell's and Gabrielle Giffords's webpages are now up, befitting their status as fully formed congresspersons. The pages seem to be generic for right now; Mitchell's is downright 1998. Their campaign pages have remained up, but have not had too many updates in a couple of weeks (here and here). I was going to start a rumor that one of them got sworn in with James Madison's copy of the Tao Te Ching, or maybe Aaron Burr's copy of the Avesta. But, you gotta be careful with these here internets.

Legislative Roundup

2007-01-04T06:29:00.000-07:00

After I wrote yesterday about the possible fight over the minimum wage, I recieved an e-mail from a Republican staffer. He told me that the leadership wasn't too excited about calling a special session and he didn't think there was much that the legislature could do anyhow. This hasn't seemed to stop the e-mails. If there is nothing that legislators can do about it, why has this e-mail and press campaign continued? Sen. Jack Harper sent out an e-mail asking for co-sponsors for a bill loaning money to the schoool facilities board. It is common to hunt for co-sponsors, legislators can often be seen going office to office looking for people to sign onto their bills. What I found unusual was how this particular plea ended:

I need some R's on this one or I may not drop it.

That's either a typo or a really strange construction. What is he saying here...does he only want Republican co-sponsors? If there are too many Democrats supporting a bill it isn't worth running? Nice to see that this election has heralded a new era of bipartisanship. Rep. Ted Downing, who is still officially in office until Monday, is still opening bill folders. What this means is that he is attempting to keep writing bills in the hopes that others will run them for him. Reportedly, he is trying to get Republicans to run the bills; I haven't heard if he's had any takers. This isn't unusual, a retiring or vacating member may have a project that they have been working on for a while that they will, of course, want someone else to take over. But Downing, according to two members that I talked to, has opened fifty folders. What is he planning to do here?

Hey Joe, Ever Have a Party and Nobody Came?

2007-01-03T17:44:00.000-07:00

Those of you that followed the Senate election in Connecticut may remember that Joe Lieberman, when bolting the Democratic party, formed his own party "Connecticut for Lieberman." The weird part was, this party had no actual voters as registered members, not even Lieberman himself. A fella named John Orman, who is styled as a Lieberman critic, has now registered as the party's only member and filed paperwork naming himself chairman. Because of Lieberman's performance, the party has won limited ballot status. Orman plans to recruit other Lieberman critics and use the party as a way to "hold Lieberman accountable." Where does Lieberman go if he loses the CFL primary?

Glassman Files

2007-01-03T16:33:00.000-07:00

I've known for a couple of weeks that Rodney Glassman was planning to run in Ward 2. I was going to write about it, but Glassman embargoed me. Is that the proper use of the verb? So, that means I had to let Jim Nintzel get a scoop on me. Guldurnit. As reported on the Weekly's blog last Friday, Glassman is interested in the council seat currently occupied by Democrat-turned-independent Carol West. West isn't running. Other candidates mentioned by the Weekly are 2003 chellenger Lianda Ludwig and former NAACP president Clarence Boykins. Glassman tendered his resignation to Raúl Grijalva's office last week and filed today as a candidate. His campaign co-chairs are former Mayor George Miller and his wife Ros. He has also garnered the support of former Councilmember (and West's old boss) Janet Marcus. In addition to his work with Grijalva, Glassman was the owner and manager of an East Side ice rink, and also runs a philanthropic enterprise, the Glassman Foundation. He has also been spotted at local sporting events singing the national anthem. Ludwig made a run at West, then still a Democrat, in the 2003 primary where she was backed by labor and neighborhood interests who were angry at West for a raft of votes when she voted with Mayor Bob Walkup and the two Republicans that were then on the council. I'm not sure that Ludwig would get nearly that level of support since she would no longer be the vessel for anger at Carol West. Glassman also did a very smart thing in tapping Katie Bolger to put together his campaign. Bolger was a backer of Ludwig in 2003. With or without Ludwig in the race, Bolger's presence not only brings organizational skill, but also gives Glassman, who comes out of the business community, an in with and credibility among the neighborhood activists who have a great deal of say in who the nominee will be. According to the City Clerk's website, Lori Oien, who has done work with MADD and the City Magistrate Selection Committee, is the only Republican candidate to file.

The Turk Is In The City!

2007-01-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

Congressman Keith Ellison, in furtherance of his obvious anti-American values agenda, is not only using a copy of the Koran at his swearing in, but is using a copy once owned by that dangerous radical, Thomas Jefferson. Of course, the ceremony is not actually a "swearing-in," but never mind that. Jefferson, for those who don't know, was a notorious revolutionary, condemned by President John Adams as a libertine, a womanizer and too kind to the French. Golly, can we just hang this man for treason now before it is too late?

Minimum Wage!

2007-01-03T11:03:00.000-07:00

It looks like the pressure is going to be on our legislators to gut the provisions of the just passed proposition 202 that raised our state's minumum wage. The crux of the argument is that the new minimum wage statute overrides a federal provision that allowed of sub-minimum wage for employers that hired the developmentally disabled. I don't know why this argument was not brought up during the debate on the initiative, instead opponents used a bogus privacy argument that rang hollow with most of the public. I don't work with the devlopmentally disabled, so someone with more experience in that area may have to tell me why we allow an employer to pay them less for the exact same jobs that non-disabled people perform in the same workplace. If their disabilities make them less able to perform their job functions than other employees (thus deserving of lower pay), then why hire them at all? By the way, do the developmentally disabled pay less for a loaf of bread than the rest of us? There was an attempt to get the governor to call a lame duck special session shortly before Christmas on this matter. The governor said "no dice" faster than Andrea Martin in that old SCTV sketch. Probably lucky for the Republicans too, since I can already tell you what would have happened:

Governor calls a special session on adjusting the new minimum wage statute to allow for a sub-minimum wage for developmentally disabled employees.
Democratic legislators are shut out of the process while Jim Weiers and attempts to find 31 votes entirely out of his caucus
Eventual bill is passed after three days of back room armtwisitng. Phil Lopes complains that his caucus hasn't seen the bill. His "no" vote is derided by Republican leaders as another example of obstructionism.
Bill turns out to be a series of tax credits that bear only the most tangential relationship to the issue of the developmentally disabled.
Governor vetoes bill. Republicans pretend to be shocked.

Despite the flurry of e-mails to legislators on this issue, there is actually a sizeable block of folks that work with the developmentally disabled that like the new minimum wage law. On the 21st, a letter went out from Arc, one of the largest organizations advocating for the developmentally disabled, endorsing the $6.75 minimum wage and stating that paying the developmentally disabled like other employees actually helps in their integration into the larger community. The letter was authored by Arc Executive Director Carrie Hobbs Guiden and signed by six other leaders of advocacy organizations who endorse moving the developmentally disabled out of "sheltered work environments" and into what they term "integrated employment."

I have no doubts that there are many who are looking out for the best interests of the disabled here who want this change in the minimum wage. The cynic in me wonders though how long it will take for other interests to try to ride this issue and gut the new minimum wage law that they never wanted in the first place.

Year in Review

2007-01-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

Last year, I published a top ten list of folks who had been mentioned on my blog. I'd be remiss if I didn't do that for 2006 as well:

Rep.-elect Gabrielle Giffords - 92 mentions
Rep. Randy Graf - 85 mentions
Gov. Janet Napolitano - 67 mentions
Rep. Raúl Grijalva - 67 mentions
Sen. Jon Kyl - 65 mentions
Patty Weiss - 57 mentions
Rep. J. D. Hayworth - 54 mentions
Jim Pederson - 52 mentions
Rep.-elect Harry Mitchell - 39 mentions
Jeff Latas - 34 mentions

Last year's top two were Kathleen Dunbar and Fred Ronstadt, who only recieved 8 and 4 mentions this year. Napolitano, Grijalva, Kyl, Giffords and Graf are all making appearances for the second year in a row.

This Year's Top Posts, As Determined By You, My Adoring Readers

2006-12-31T11:08:00.000-07:00

The most popular posts this year, as determined by the number of responses:

Oops! - 62 comments
Pederson Retroactively Endorses Dean for President, I Guess - 57 comments
CD 8 Polling Numbers Straight from the Wick Newspaperin' Empire - 56 comments
Dueling Press Releases - 51 comments
Howard Dean Endorses...? - 47 comments
I Don't Know Albert, We Don't Know Anyone Named Ann Onymous - 47 comments
Exploding. Plastic. Inevitable. - 45 comments
My Opponent Is a Lying Cheat, But I Mean That in the Most Positive Way - 45 comments
Hey Rocky... - 43 comments
A Bit of a Response - 40 comments

All but one of these was about the CD 8 race. In comparison, Last year's top entry (also on the CD 8 race) would not have even made the top ten.

Vote for Me, You Paranoid Whacko!

2006-12-31T09:27:00.000-07:00

A bit of an update from before: Lisa James's website is now up and active. Since it is still new, the "news" section is a bit thin, with only two entries. One is a rather interesting choice: a post from ThinkRight Arizona that endorses James's candidacy. Why would it be odd to put up a lauditory article? Well, here is how it starts:

For those of you out there in conspiracy land, take the aluminum foil off of your head.

Great way to start, call those of you that aren't on your side a bunch of whack jobs. That'll win them over. As if who ThinkRight was pointing to was not clear, here is his closer:

But, I guess, if she’s not YOUR conservative, then she don’t count.

Yep, go ahead and call them out...excellent. Yes, I know, she didn't write it. But why post something on her site that alienates most of the people that she hopes will be voting for her? Heck, if this indicates how she will run the Republican Party, then go ahead guys, put her in charge. We'll have the governor's office for another twenty years. I gotta give credit to Zelph for pointing this out to me. He made an excellent point: this from a woman works for a PR firm?

Jim's the Fall

2006-12-30T17:23:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Citizen had an interview with Jim Kolbe that was both a retrospective of his career and a list of his problems with the Republican party. The article touches upon the federal investigation into a trip he took with some interns to the Grand Canyon. Kolbe points out that nothing was substantiated. I wasn't sure what to think of the story myself. Tales of Kolbe hitting on one male page/aide/campaign worker or another have circulated for years, even before he was publicly out. But these stories always had a urban legend quality about them. They always seemed to have happened to "the cousin of this guy I know" or some equally marginal source. Frankly, it seemed that these stories only had any currency because some people think that all gay men are naturally on the prowl for young men. The bulk of the interview is about Kolbe's disappointment with the direction of the Republican party. In particular, the current obsession in some quarters with social issues like gay marriage. This may seem a bit odd, since he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (a vote which resulted in his outing). His statements on this matter have earned some notice nationally, über-Blog Talking Points Memo has a feature about the interview. His warnings about the direction of the Republican party will probably go unheeded. A quick perusal of the comments show some claiming that Kolbe lost touch with the voters of Southern Arizona on issues like immigration. They continue to say this even though the candidate that shared their views on the subject and campaigned heavily on it lost. I'm not quite sure how they read that...but that's okay...they can keep it up and lose the next election too. NB - I had the chance to vote against Kolbe nine times, and hapilly did so on eight of those occasions. I even voted for Gary Auerbach. The one time I voted for Kolbe was in 1990, when the Democrats nominated a freak named Chuck Phillips.

Darn That Edwards, Why Doesn't He Act Like a Good Millionaire?

2006-12-28T15:53:00.000-07:00

Tipped off to this by Talking Points Memo, the blog that this humble spot on the internet hopes to be someday. Check this out: This might be an innocent observation by the MSNBC folks, you know, hey, look, a rich guy that gives a damn. My worry is that this is once again the Republican spin from 2004: Edwards is a hypocrite for talking about working people while he himself is wealthy. The Republicans can say this because they are against the elites and no millionaire in America is a registered member of the Republican party, right? I'll forget this whole thing if the next time they show the President "clearing brush" on his ranch they put up something like "Wealthy Connecticut Born Yale and Harvard Alum Just a Regular Guy and Texas Cowboy."

Feliz Ano Nuevo, Señor Warden!

2006-12-28T08:56:00.000-07:00

In case you need further proof that our system of justice works, even if it may take a time or two: Roy Warden was convicted yesterday of charges of assault, threats and intimidation stemming from an incident back in June when Warden pushed a teenaged camera operator. So, here's what I don't get: the guy does this Mexican flag burning routine for publicity, then gets mad at the folks that are shooting pictures? Until this week, Warden's obnoxiousness hadn't been found criminal by our local courts. There were the letters accusing a Star editor of being a "hairy chested lesbian" and his attempt to disrupt services at the Cathedral. Of course, these couldn't be prosecuted. He was indicted for doing something similar to the June incident during a rally at Armory Park, but he was acquitted in that case. The sentencing is in January. Say, I think I missed a tilde in the title...naw, can't be that important.

More Housekeeping

2006-12-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

I disabled "Pop-up Politicians." Many of you, particularly Firefox users, have complained about how slow the page is loading and these complaints seem to correspond to when I started using Pop-up Politicians. In retrospect, I don't know how much using it brought to the page, since a link to the member's home page would be just as useful to you all. Those of you that have been having trouble, go ahead and e-mail me and tell me if the problem is fixed. Thank you.

John Edwards to Announce Tommorrow...Oh, Wait, He Did? Wait, He Didn't.

2006-12-27T19:14:00.000-07:00

John Edwards was hoping to put off his presidential announcement until tommorrow, but apparently today his website became hot for a while and then was taken down. No matter, really. I mean, who thought he wasn't going to run? He has made two excellent speeches in Tucson during the 2006 campaign. The speeches were not standard issue, "Ain't Tucson great, I love the Wildcats, vote for Mark Manoil" rhetorical drivel. These were definitely presidential campaign speeches. Not only that, they revolved almost entirely around the issues of poverty and the working class. These are the sorts of issues that Edwards hopes to highlight in the most powerfully symbolic way in his announcement tommorrow, which will be from New Orleans's Ninth Ward. This will be the first announcement by a candidate who can actually get the Democratic nomination. Sorry Tom and Dennis. Way back in 2002 (so long ago, eh?), a friend asked me what I thought of the then gelling presidential field. I went through the folks I thought I would run, and my friend said, "What about John Edwards?" I said, "Nice haircut, but I don't see the heft there." I didn't realize that she was close to some Edwards staffers. Big mistake. At the time, I thought he was just a political climber. I see a lot more to him now that I've seen him speak on a number of occasions and seen the issues he's chosen to associate himself with. Heck, what standard issue politico would use precious media face time to talk about Uganda? As for the political field: Edwards came to Arizona on a couple of occasions to campaign for candidates, and this may mean some organizational advantages here. Raúl Grijalva was worked heavilly by Edwards's campaign in 2004, but the issue of the war was foremost in his mind and he went for Howard Dean. The layout is a bit different now, and Grijalva has grown close to Edwards. Edwards campagned for Gabrielle Giffords along with other Democratic candidates, but another possible candidate, Bill Richardson, came out to campaign for Giffords as well. Getting early commitments does not always lead to victory. In 2004, with our early primary, Joe Lieberman worked members of the legislature heavily. He got a pretty impressive slate of endorsements early on. Many of these unendorsed him as it became obvious that his campaign was going nowhere. The result? Lieberman dropped out the day of the Arizona primary before the polls had even closed. I happened upon a Draft John Edwards site. The guy has essentially been running for president for four years now (even his Vice Presidential run could be seen as a dry run for an eventual try at the top job), doesn't he need to show some reluctance for there to be a draft movement? Yes, I was part of the effort to draft Wesley Clark a couple of years ago, but geez, at least he wasn't actually campaigning at the time. NB - Yes, I know, as a dedicated Tar Heel fan, Edwards would never say "I love the Widcats." I was just illustrating. However, he did famously say "I hate Duke basketball," in the middle of his 2004 run (a common sentiment, but maybe that's why he didn't win his home state primary?), so I guess he roots for Lute and the boys when they are up against the Blue Devils.

A Dedicated Epistoler Leaves the Scene

2006-12-27T09:33:00.000-07:00

Michael Chessman, leader of something called the Euro-British Coalition, announced last week in a short note that he has ended his e-mail campaign to Arizona legislators. What, you've never heard of Chessman or the Euro-British Coalition? Chessman's agenda was to promote British culture in Canada. He would achieve this by installing the English public school system in Canada, mandatory philosophy education for law students, oh yeah, and the installation of a monarchy in Canada. His suggestion for Queen: Emma Thompson. Oh, and he also wants more immigration from Eastern Europe. Checking his website, he seems to want this because he likes Ukranian women. Hey, he said it, check the website. I have no idea why he thought that writing to members of the Arizona legislature would be helpful in this pursuit. Maybe he stopped when he found out that Arizona was not a Canadian province.

Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.

2006-12-27T09:15:00.000-07:00

I know that carping liberals like me are supposed to hate the pardon, but I think his only mistake in that was not demanding that Richard Nixon make an appology in return. Other than that, a decent, but not great president. He even admitted this himself ("I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln."). He was an admirable public servant who brought our nation through two difficult times, the humiliating fall of Saigon and the aftermath of Watergate. I saw him once when Air Force 1 landed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. He put on a sombrero and said "Hasta loo-ego." Lucky for him, Chevy Chase never saw that. N.B. - I changed the picture after I found out that Wactivist used the same picture (curse you Wactivist!). This is also appropriate because just like Pelé, Ford was an excellent athlete who played his football without a helmet.

From the R Cubed Family to Yours, Feliz Navidad, Wesołych Świąt

2006-12-23T21:15:00.000-07:00

And, in the spirit of eccumenism, a belated Salaam Aleekum to Virgil Goode and Dennis Prager for the Eid holiday, Happy Hanukkah to Judith Reagan and Mel Gibson and Happy Kwanzaa to George Allen. Oh, and Season's Greetings to Bill O'Reilly.

Senator, the Name is Spelled T...E...D

2006-12-22T18:39:00.000-07:00

I just got an e-mail from Evan Bayh's All America PAC. It started "Dear Geoff..." Maybe he decided to put those presidential ambitions on hold until he gets his lists cleaned up.

Some of Pearce's Best Friends...

2006-12-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

One of the strangest stories coming out of the recent Holocaust denial conference in Tehran was the presence of representatives of Neturei Karta, a small Hasidic sect. So, I guess the fact that they were Jews at the conference makes any of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-semetic tirades okay, right? Of course not. A recent East Valley Tribune featured a story about Frank Alvarez, a Hispanic who supports Russell Pearce's tough stand on immigration. I'm not going to doubt that there are many more like him, because I've met plenty of them. The relations between native born Hispanics and new arrivals is complicated (at best). What I do have a problem with is that it almost seems like the press is playing into Pearce's hands here by agreeing with his notion that Pearce is only being derided as a racist only for his position on illegal immigration. Yes, a large part of the opposition to Pearce is about immigration. But, there are plenty of people in the legislature who share his views on immigration but are not undergoing the firestorm he is. Why is that? Well, his public and private statements lead some to believe that his views don't come entirely from just some notion about securing the borders and protecting jobs. When he casually throws around words like "wetback" and forwards white supremacist emails to supporters, it really makes people like me wonder if this is about race rather than the law. Having a couple of Hispanic friends for convienience's sake doesn't convince me otherwise. His problems are also a matter of his own style. His heavy handed, bombastic manner with which he ran the appropriations committee last session was so bad that it was difficult for House leaders to find enough of Pearce's fellow Republicans to serve on the committee with him. That has nothing to do with folks attacking him for his stance on immigration, no matter how much he tries to say otherwise.

Geez, Greg, Are You Trying to Get Me Into Trouble?

2006-12-22T07:48:00.000-07:00

Greg Patterson flatters me too much over at Espresso Pundit by saying that newly elected congressman Gabrielle Giffords should hire me at her office. Well, thank you for the sentiment, Greg, but there are plenty of very well qualified people in line in front of me. In fact, there has been a development on that point. I had heard about this days ago, but I was going to keep quiet about it. Patterson posted it on his blog, so what the heck. Scooped on Tucson political news by Greg Patterson? Will the humilation ever stop? Giffords will be hiring C. J. Karamargin to handle the press for her. An excellent choice, since Karamargin was a political writer at the Star for years. He left the star at the beginning of the political season to write about food for the Citizen. While at the Star, Karamargin developed a good relationship with Raúl Grijalva's press staffer, Natalie Luna. Karamargin also has a great deal of respect for Grijalva. One of the amusing back stories over Grijalva's reign in congress has been how many press staffers Jim Kolbe's office has gone through, which led some of us to speculate that this is because he all of a sudden did not have the near monopoly of the press that he had before and was a bit frustrated. My point here is that with two members that both have strong press operations, it would be easy for there to be conflict between the two offices. Between Karamargin and Luna, I don't see that there would be anything except maybe a friendly rivalry. These two people out there flying the flag for their offices can only be a good thing for the Democratic party in Southern Arizona. I recieved an e-mail from a reader complaining that Karamargin is still getting stories printed in the Citizen, and this is an unseemly conflict of interest. I disagree. If Karamargin was still writing about politics, I could see the point. I can't see where Karamargin writing about the wonders of the Christmas tamal creates a conflict of interest on the level of say, writing a dismissive article about charges against a congressman then going off to work for that congressman's lawyer's publicity firm. I can't think off hand of anyone that has done that... NB - A fella from Phoenix wrote me last week and asked about Karamargin, and I said, "naw." The next day, someone told me that he was being considered. What the heck do I know?

Some Things Are Just Beyond Parody

2006-12-20T11:02:00.000-07:00

I was alerted to this one by Talking Points Memo; it is so beautiful that it needs repeating. This picture is from Rudy Giuliani's website. Flags are flying both to the right, and to the left...hmm. It just depends which way the wind blows. Maybe John McCain can borrow the picture too. Also interesting, his campaign bio omits any mention of Andrew and Caroline, his two children with former wife and occasional Law and Order guest star Donna Hannover. Given Andrew's behavior at his first inauguration, I can totally understand.

Keep Those Web Eyes Peeled

2006-12-19T17:46:00.000-07:00

Lisa James, the designated "establishment" candidate for State Republican Party Chair, has reserved a domain name for a campaign website. The address is lajamesgop.com. There is nothing there right now, but I'm pretty sure there will be soon. One of the knocks against her over at Sonoran Alliance is the allegation of some shenanigans about how she got elected to the State Committee. I've heard nothing about this since they first posted the accusation, but if there is anything to it, I'm sure that Randy Pullen's partisans will bring it forward over the next few weeks. In return, look for James's supporters to allege that Pullen's hot button conservative positions coincided with his wanting higher office. This will be fun.

Breaking News: Waid to Run

2006-12-19T11:04:00.000-07:00

The latest out of Central Avenue is that David Waid has informed folks that he plans to run for re-election for chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Uvas Agrias

2006-12-19T07:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the Arizona Capitol Times has named Espresso Pundit as the best political website. Oh yeah? Well, uh, I never liked you guys much anyway. I'll just go hide over here.

2008 Candidates, First in a Series

2006-12-19T06:38:00.000-07:00

I wanted to write a bit about my take on the Democratic presidential field. I started writing and realized that I was taking up way too much space. I was trying to avoid missing out on someone and having one of you post angrilly about my missing, I dunno, Dennis Kucinich or Christopher Dodd. So, I will say that this is the first in a series. If I miss your fave, then either I will write about him or her later, or they will just drop out after realizing that no one has heard of them. The punditocracy has already declared this a two person race: Barack Obama v Hillary Clinton. Nice of them to whittle down the field before most of the primary schedule has even been set. Someone yesterday accused me of indulging in "Obamamania." Well, the guy has been in the news just a wee bit lately, maybe y'all have noticed? I like the idea of his running, but I am not totally down with his candidacy yet. The only danger I see is that the media infatuation will stop. I can see already see the stories round about March or April of next year talking about "Obama Fatigue." Whether or not most people have even heard of him yet, the media will decide that they are tired of him and thus, the country must be too. Obama's first test is whether or not he can keep the hype going, or make sure it is revived in time for the opening of the primaries in 2008. Also, just as I am not totally down with Obama, I'm not totally down on Clinton. The new spin from some of her boosters is that Republicans have been throwing all the've got at the woman for nearly a decade and a half, but she still manages to get elected (even in Republican areas of New York) and her national poll numbers are strong. I see their point. The number that is always pointed to by detractors is that one poll or another shows that forty percent or so of voters would never vote for her. Yeah, doesn't sound great, but I'd like to see how many of them would be willing to vote for any Democrat. Gleeful Republicans have been declaring her general election candidacy dead on arrival, and many of the folks that Calvin Trillin so eloquently calls "Sabbath Gasbags" seem to agree with this. The knock is that she may excite a large part of the Democratic primary electorate, but that she turns off most voters. Most polling shows that she actually could go toe to toe with most Republican candidates (except for media darling John McCain), so this isn't borne out by real data, mostly just the establishment media's dislike of the woman. I was a wee lad at the time, but weren't Democrats and Washington media types similarly dismissive of a certain Governor of California in the run up to 1980? I'll get to the other candidates later. UPDATE: I may have spoken too soon, there apparently are polls showing Clinton beating McCain.

SEIU Update

2006-12-18T20:47:00.000-07:00

I haven't written about SEIU's organizing efforts among Pima County workers in a while. Back in late October, Attorney General Terry Goddard issued an opinion that county workers were entitled to a vote on "meet and confer" status. Goddard's opinion all but overruled a self-interested opinion issued by Barbara LaWall's office (many of her own dissatisfied workers want SEIU representation). LaWall has relented, and a Board of Supervisors vote is scheduled tommorrow to place an item on the January 9th agenda authorizing county employees to vote on representation by a union. Tommorrow's motion has, in all likelyhood, four votes: those of the three Democrats plus Republican Ray Carroll. This vote is the best of all possible worlds for Carroll: it is his chance to do the right thing, and his chance to take a shot at County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry. Huckleberry is opposed to any union, but got to where he is at because he knows how to count to three (which, as we have all learned from former Supervisor Dan Eckstrom, is the most important skill in Pima County politics). He sees that the writing is on the wall here, and will grudgingly accept that county workers will organize. However, observers wonder what sort of language he will try to slip into the enabling ordinance. Those details aside, this is great news for the labor movement.

A Reconsideration

2006-12-18T11:28:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'll relent a bit. I'll cut Time a break for their lame "You are the Person of the Year" thing. Why? For linguistic reasons. In English, we make no distinction of singular or plural "yous," except in regionalisms (y'all, youse). So, I don't know exactly which "you" they are refering to. This would be so much easier in Spanish or Polish. I also don't know if this is familiar or formal. Since we ditched the "thou" (along with its plural, "ye"), I can't tell if Time is respecting me (or us, for that matter) or putting me down. It could be none of these; it could even be the eliptical you. I'll go ahead and reserve judgement until all of this gets cleared up.

Bob Barr Bolts

2006-12-18T09:56:00.000-07:00

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr has announced that he has quit the Republican party and joined the Libertarian party. Barr has been a vocal administration critic on matters of privacy and a critic of the outgoing congressoinal majority. He is no liberal, however. His show has featured interviews with Ann Coulter and his website lavishes praise on John Bolton. He was also one of the main figures in the Monica-Whitewater witch hunt. Does this augur for anything more substantial? Possibly, but probably not so much a mass defection of small "l" libertarians becoming big "L" ones. The last former congressman that I can remember that bolted to the Libertarians was a one-term Texas congressman, Ron Paul. Paul later got the Libertarian nomination for president in 1988. Paul was again elected to congress in 1996...as a Republican.

What a Cop Out

2006-12-17T12:13:00.000-07:00

Okay, is this the lamest "Person of the Year" ever? This is even lamer than the 1966 "Man of the Year" given to the boomers (Gawd, don't even get me started). Wow, could these guys be more lazy? Heaven forbid they choose an acutal mover and shaker, a newsmaker. God knows, nothing happened this year, right? I have the right to gripe about this, after all, I am a man of the year.

Grijalva Open House and Toy Drive

2006-12-16T07:47:00.000-07:00

From Raúl Grijalva's office:

Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva will host a Holiday Open House and Toy Drive at his Tucson office, 810 East 22nd Street, on Wednesday, December 20th from 5:30pm - 7:00pm. During the open house, there will also be a toy drive for the families of the International Association of Machinists Local 933, who remain on strike against Raytheon Missile Systems.

Seems Like a Long Way to Go

2006-12-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

So, I was reading that Jeff Flake and a bi-partisan group of US House members is in Cuba this weekend. They hope to be able to meet with Raúl Castro. Raúl Castro? Wouldn't it be easier for Flake to get into his car and drive south? I mean, Raúl Castro is practicing law in Nogales these days.

Legislative Republicans: Still Bitter at Tay Cook, Apparently

2006-12-15T18:24:00.000-07:00

One of the e-mails I recieved after my post about the hoo-hah the Democrats are trying to raise about the partisan breakdown of committees pointed out to me that back in the 1960's, when the Democrats had control of both houses of the legislature, that some committees had a 12-3 partisan make up. Well, that makes everything okay then. I am not sure how many committees had that sort of membership, since it would have been hard to maintain too many fifteen member committees in the 80 member house of the period. So, I'm not sure how many committees were that lopsided. Aside from that though...that was over forty years ago, before a significant number of current legislators were even born. Geez, you have to go back that far to pin some outrage on the Democrats? No matter, I put my crack research team to work to find out the partisan make-up of the Democratic-majority legislatures of the 1960's. Here is what they found: 24th Legislature (1959-1960):

Senate: 27 Democrats, 1 Republican
House: 55 Democrats, 25 Republicans

25th Legislature (1961-1962):

Senate: 24 Democrats, 4 Republicans
House: 52 Democrats, 28 Republicans

26th Legislature (1963-1964):

Senate: 24 Democrats, 4 Republicans
House: 48 Democrats, 32 Republicans

27th Legislature (1965-1966):

Senate: 26 Democrats, 2 Republicans
House: 45 Democrats, 35 Republicans

So, it looks like through part of this period, there may have been lopsided make-up of committees because, well, the legislature was lopsided. The House with the closest partisan split was in the 27th Legislature, which occurred during the administration of Democrat Sam Goddard. That House was actually run by a coalition of conservative "Pinto Democrats" and Republicans, with power (presumably including the power to make committee assignments) split between Democratic Speaker Andrew Jackson "Jack" Gilbert of Cochise County and Republican Majority Leader John Haugh of Pima County. This was the epitome of the "copper collar" legislatures of the period, and gave Goddard no end of grief during his too brief administration. It would be interesting to see if those 12-3 committees were in that legislature. The 1966 election was dominated by a scandal involving the state liquor department and also was the first conducted electing legislators by districts rather than at-large by county. This brought an end to the domination of both houses by rural Democrats, and brought an end to sustained Democratic control in either house.

He Says That Because I Don't Know What I Want, But I Know How To Get It

2006-12-15T11:15:00.000-07:00

Phoenix Buisiness Journal ran an article this morning where Russell Pearce takes on folks who have been critical of his behavior and public statements. Pearce is quoted as saying:

These are anarchists who continue to attack me because of my sincere effort to secure our borders, enforce our laws and I put God, country and family first.

Anarchists? Exacly what decade is this guy living in? Didn't all that die with Emma Goldman? Or maybe Sid Vicious? Maybe he's right. Sometimes, when they don't know I'm listening, I hear Pearce's detractors plotting the assasination of King Umberto and William McKinley.

I Knew a Guy Once That Had a Cat Named Chairman

2006-12-15T06:23:00.000-07:00

I spoke to a Republican activist up in Phoenix and he seemed to feel that Lisa James had some momentum in the chairmanship race. His take: despite whatever problems the activists have with the consultants and the hierarchy, Randy Pullen is being seen in some quarters as someone who is looking at the chairmanship as a stepping stone to something else rather than someone who wants to build the party. Also, the more pragmatic activists are wondering if the "RINO-Hunting" direction that Pullen's supporters are promising is a winning strategy. I have my doubts. The only hard evidence I have to go on (for obvious reasons, I have nothing resembling a hard-count of Republican State Committee voters) was the District 11 race up in Phoenix, which was seen by Pullen supporters as a proxy war between them and the Republican establishment. Rob Haney, a Pullen supporter, won that race overwhelmingly. (Another upshot of that race: Haney has a great deal of control over his district's proxies. Unlike in the Democratic party, Maricopa and Pima County district chairs can get away with carrying as many proxies as they wish at state meetings.) I suppose it is possible that the state committee members in that District are an outlier, or that they resented the ham-fisted pressure from folks like John McCain and took it out on his candidate. On the Democratic side, there still hasn't been official word from David Waid about whether or not he will run again. Given this race is a less public affair, he can probably wait a couple of weeks to say either way. The talk is that Janet Napolitano's operatives would like him to stay, but there is some grumbling about his leadership from Democratic Cardinals. Napolitano's folks are definitely not fans of the two announced alternatives, Jeff Latas and Randy Camacho. There are other names being floated as alternatives, but far be it from me to engage in rumor and innuendo.

Sound and Fury...Signifying Not Much At All, Really

2006-12-14T11:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, some politicians and community organizations held a press conference to ask House Speaker Jim Weiers to reconsider his decision to allow Russell Pearce to continue as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The Republic ran a piece on the press conference this morning, and it included a quote from Barrett Marson, spokesman for Speaker Weiers.

The speaker is going to do the right thing and stick with the person who shepherded through two compromise budgets.

I find this interesting because the budgets that were actually passed and signed by Governor Napolitano were negotiated by House and Senate leadership and the Governor. The "compromise budgets" (passed without any Democratic votes, so how much of a compromise were they?) that made it through Pearce's committee were vetoed. So, what did Pearce, with all of his bluster, actually accomplish? And why is he being rewarded for it?

Star Comments Sections

2006-12-14T07:23:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago, the Arizona Daily Star removed comments from some stories. The move was controversial, as shown by the 232 comments posted to the story about the comment removal. Star Executive Editor Bobbie Jo Buel said a few days ago that there may be restrictions placed on comments in the future. Looking at the comments that have been placed this week, either there have been restrictions, or the more virtiolic posters have caught on and moved on to another hobby. I've been talking to a couple of folks about this move. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the comments section in the Star's newsroom. The most amazing phenomenon was that any story, any story, would get twisted to be the fault of an illegal immigrant. The moment this happened, the "discussion" in the comments would turn useless. A crime story, particularly if the perpetrator was identified with a Latino name (actual legal status was unimportant), would be further proof that these illegal aliens were criminals. If a Hispanic was the victim of a ctime, than they obviously deserved it because they shouldn't have been here. If there was a story about problems in the schools, then it was becuase of the illegal aliens that were getting educated. If TEP needed a rate hike, them darned illegals are leaving their lights on. Heck, if the Wildcats lose a game...it's the illegal aliens causing those incompleted passes. Particularly disturbing to some reporters was that even a Hispanic name on the byline would lead to a chorus of racial epithets and questioning of citizenship. I can see the reporter's gripe, if your boss invited people into your workplace to shout racial epithets at you every day, that would constitute a "hostile work environment," wouldn't it? The comments would often become a food fight and it was less and less likely to find anything enlightening in there. As the discussions deteriorated, folks that had anything serious or thoughtful to say would get turned off and simply wouldn't post. Any story about Jim Kolbe, for example, would lead to snide comments about his sexuality. For all of the griping from people about "open discussion" and "letting the people's voice be heard," it is hard to see how calling a congressman "Tail Banger Jim" contributes to the conversation or helps people understand the news. It would be easy to dismiss this as Star reporters griping that people were responding to their stories, but the dislike of the comment section was more widespread than that. One Tucson Weekly reader suggested naming the users of the Star's comment section to the annual "Get Out of Town" list. One former journalist I talked to said he did actually find the comments helpful, particularly on buisiness and consumer stories. In the work he does now, it was helpful to read the unsolicited, unmonitored comments to see how people really felt about local buisinesses and their treatment of customers. This may be true on some stories, but it seems that on many stories finding thoughtful comments became a "Where's Waldo" exercise. Back at the beginning of the campaign season, I attended a workshop given by the Star and Citizen that was both a pitch for advertising and an outline of their policies regarding letters and guest opinons. They told us about their restrictions on letters to the editor and guest opinion, and then talked about the on-line user comments section. I asked about the user comments, which at that time were already becoming defamatory and even libelous towards certain candidates. Their answer at the time was that people have first amendment rights and they can't do anything about it. Given that this was said minutes after they had talked about the restrictions on letters and guest opinions, I found this answer disingenuous. The fact is, the Star runs the forum, and they can run it how ever the heck they like, they can take it down even. They have first amendment rights too, and don't have to promote opinions that they find offensive. However, they can't expect to have used the first amendment as an excuse to allow their bandwidth to be used for this garbage all these months, and then wonder why users feel that this is a restriction on their first amendment rights when they finally clamp down. I'm interested to see exactly how the Star (and soon, no doubt, the Citizen) decides to handle posters. Will they do what I've seen on Daily Kos and Big Soccer, two internet bulletin boards I use, where users who post defamatory missives get cited and eventually cut off by the users themselves? Such a system isn't perfect (on Big Soccer, I once got "red carded" by a DC United fan merely for joking about a questionable penalty kick in a game that they won), but I think that giving the readers and posters the power to police themselves seems to have worked well on other such sites, and may be a good way for our local papers to handle such things.

Department of Corrections Department

2006-12-13T17:06:00.000-07:00

A regular reader took issue with some of my points in my post regarding the organization of the House in the upcoming session. First, I didn't make it clear enough that the issue about the third floor offices was a rumor that I had heard. As it turns out, what has actually happened is that despite their being six more Democrats than there were last session, there will only be one new office space opened for them on the third floor. As I said in my post, this is a minor, cosmetic action at best, but symbolic nonetheless. Second, the writer took issue with my characterization of last sessions committes as 5-3. I was mistaken on that. Only one committee was 5-3, the remaining committees were 6-3 or 4-2. The mistake obviously took attention away from my main point: the ratio on the committees should reflect the make-up of the House. The House's 33-27 membership is a heck of a lot better reflected by a 5-4 committee ratio than a 5-3 ratio. I know 'cos I checked it on my slide rule. Interestingly, the 6-3 and 4-2 ratios reflected the 39-21 ratio of the last House fairly accurately. I don't doubt for a minute that when committee memberships were set at the beginning of the last session, they gave that as a justification for the seemingly lopsided committees. The Republicans have been giving some justifications for this. The last time the Democrats had control of the legislature, Senate President Pete Rios set similar committee ratios in that body. It was controversial at the time, but I can't think of a Republican member that was around at the time to have felt aggrieved. Heck, some of them weren't even living in the state at the time. They also are trying to justify it by saying that in an early 1990's legislature when Republicans and Democrats had the exact same 33-27 partisan breakdown, the committees were 5-3 as well. At least in the case of that 1991-93 Senate, the Republicans can argue that the Democrats were unfair to them, so they can say "sauce for the goose" or whatever. However, the second argument basically says, we were unfair to you before, so it is okay to be unfair to you again. Doesn't exactly engender a lot of sympathy.

A New Era of Bipartisan Cooperation...Wait, Never Mind

2006-12-13T07:09:00.000-07:00

The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch. - Speaker Thomas Bracket Reed

It seems that the Republican leadership at the legislature is already being punitive toward Democratic members. There has already been talk that their offices may be moved from the third floor of the capitol, where most of them had offices last session, to a lower floor. Many of them are seeing this as more symbolic of how they will be treated by the majority party rather than anything substantive. Insulting, but it won't effect the job that they do. The more substantive complaint regards the make up of committees. In the last session, committees were 5-3. In this session, where the ratio of the whole house went from 39-21 to 33-27, the ratio will still be 5-3. Incoming Democratic Whip Steve Gallardo has been publicly demanding a 5-4 ratio on the committees, saying that he will "go to war" otherwise. Steve, you know that the Speaker will make sure that any war resolution gets assigned to a committee where it will go down 5-3. Even optimistic Republicans who point to the victory of Jon Kyl and some conservative-minded initiatives must, at the very least, say that the results for them were mixed given their loss of legislative seats and the wide margin for Janet Naoplitano and Terry Goddard. Shouldn't the organization of the legislature reflect that? It looks like we are in for an escalation of what we saw last session: ignore the Democratic members, ignore the Governor, pass things that you know will get vetoed, gripe when they get vetoed, then pass them again and be shocked when they get vetoed again. Oh, and when it is all over, blame the Democrats for being either ineffective or obstructionist. And these guys wonder why they didn't get that pay hike?

NB - A reader wrote taking issue with some of my assertions in this post. I addressed these in a subsequent post.

Barack and Roll

2006-12-12T16:50:00.000-07:00

I can tell that Barack Obama must be scaring the Republicans, because they have already made a couple of butt-stupid attacks on him over the last couple of weeks. Most of you already heard the one about Obama's middle name being Hussein. So effin' what? Other than the bozo that said it, it doesn't seem to have gotten too far. But, we have, what, six hundred and some odd days to go before the 2008 elections. Anyway, they have a new one: he dresses like the enemy.

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.

Greenfield isn't so much a moron as to accuse Obama of copying Ahmadinejad, but he makes the silly statement that somehow he will remind people of Ahmadinejad because he wears an open collared shirt with no tie. No, Jeff, silly pundits think of Ahmadinejad, actual people will just see a younger-than-average Senator dressing down a bit. Yeah...that no tie thing. It was invented by the Mullahs. No one else big has ever done that. -sigh- Is this the best they can do? Not that I should be helping out the conservatives on anything, but this guy is fairly liberal. Can't you attack him on, I dunno, his record or something? A few weeks ago, Obama was on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, apologizing to a reporter for ruining this guy's pick up of an intern. You can get the audio of the apology here. Sample line:

I want to apologize publicly for messing up your game.

Perhaps it is this sort of natural easy going way that they are worried about. The guy is young, friendly, attractive. Someone like John Kerry, Al Gore and Mike Dukakis were cyphers to the American people when they ran. This guy, he's already building up a relationship with people. It's a lot easier to trash an unknown rather that someone people feel like they already know and like. Those of you that know me know that I dislike football. Maybe "dislike" is too mild. Anyway, I did not watch Monday Night Football last night, but Obama was on there making an "important announcement."

Pearce Controversey Makes Yellow Sheet

2006-12-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

The Yellow Sheet, a capitol tip sheet that all the cool insiders read (you know it must be what the cool people read because I don't), has a few items on the ongoing controversey about Russell Pearce's reappointment as head of the appropriations committee. The editors give credit to our own Jim Nintzel (who is cool because he reads this blog) for highlighting not only this appointment but several others made by Jim Weiers in a recent column. The Tucson Citizen ran an editorial on the matter last week, and I also wrote about this as well. The Democratic caucus has scheduled a press conference on this matter tommorrow, and Steve Gallardo was sharply critical of the appointment of the often bombastic, divisive and at best borderline racist Pearce to this important committee. Apparently, according to the Sheet, nitpicking liberals like me and Gallardo aren't the only ones who have trouble with Pearce:

Pearce's antics have been so offensive, a railbird told our reporter yesterday, that House Republican Leaders are having difficulty filling out the Appropriations Committee roster--expected to be between 15 and 18 members--because a number of members are unwilling to sit on a committee he chairs.

Ouch! How bad does it have to be that a legislator won't sit on appropriatons? Isn't that what lawmakers dream of at night?

El Día de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe

2006-12-12T11:13:00.000-07:00

Today is the day we celebrate the appearance of the Blessed Virgin to a poor young native named Juan Diego at a place called Tepeyac. Many of us see comfort in the story, since She appeared not to the rich or the powerful or the oppressor, but rather the most humble.

Barnicle and DeLay Play Wiffleball

2006-12-12T06:15:00.000-07:00

I was going to wait for a transcript to be posted, but it appears it won't be until later today. As some of you know, Boston-based curmudgeon and plagiarist Mike Barnicle has been hosting the show while Chris Matthews does whatever Chris Matthews does when he ain't working. Yesterday, we viewers were told that Tom DeLay would be playing "hardball." I guess I misunderstand the word "hardball." I thought "hard" as in, I dunno, difficult, or more intense than say, softball, cricket or jarts. I suppose you can check the transcript yourself when it gets posted this afternoon. The line that stands out most in my mind is when Barnicle told DeLay "You're a teriffic guy." Hey, if Barnicle wants to slather praise on the guy, great. Maybe he likes his politics, but please don't call it "hardball." The impression I get from Barnicle is that he is a bit naïve about politics, too naïve to be doing serious political interviews. At one point he even posited that DeLay would like Barack Obama. Yeah, DeLay and Obama, they hang together. I think they were in a band back in '83. One interesting revelation was about DeLay's new blog. For those that don't know, Mr. DeLay has a blog, and apparently had the comments section open for a total of 75 minutes before he realized that people who don't like him might post. Anyway, DeLay went through the normal, this is the way to get out of the beltway (of course, he's moved to the DC suburbs permanently now) and get with the real people, yadda yadda yadda. Then he admitted that he doesn't actually write the thing. Okay, it's a blog...but he doesn't write it, and he doesn't take comments. Dude, that ain't a blog, that's a press release. NB - Someone named James J. Risser managed to mirror the site before the comments were taken down. The best post was from a guy named Marc:

Everyone already assumes bloggers are unemployed losers... thanks for reinforcing that stereotype...

ISG Opponents Find New Ally

2006-12-11T07:30:00.000-07:00

Many of us have seen and read the statements from various members of the right-wing communitariat condemning the Iraq Study Group report and calling its members, who include such well known flower-power lefties as Alan Simpson and Edwin Meese, "surrender monkeys" and deriding their recommendations as "cut and run." Well, ISG skeptics may be comforted by some suprising words of support:

This report doesn't meet our needs, because it was written by people from outside, people who live in a normal environment, not this environment.

Hmm. Who said that? One of our generals? Maybe a freedom loving Iraqi leader? Nope...it was from a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr. (I didn't mess up the quote this time, you can find it here.) So, for the last few years, war opponents, heck, anyone that opposed even the tiniest part of administration policy, was compared to Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. How do the "stay the course" talkmeisters like being lumped in with al-Sadr?