Blog For Arizona

Democrats falling for STRIVE

It is disheartening that all the energy around immigration reform seems to have been sucked up by the deceptive STRIVE Act. Those who should be leading the fight for humane solutions to our immigration problems with Mexico, such as Senator John McCain, and Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabby Giffords are lining up behind Rep. Jeff Flake's 'compromise' measure, that is no real compromise at all.

STRIVE puts border enforcement ahead of any real progress on expanding worker visas, documenting existing immigrant populations, and stopping the unconscionable number of deaths on our borders. Most importantly, STRIVE does absolutely nothing to address the systemic conditions driving economic migration to the United States from Latin America (especially Mexico) nor anything to secure the rights of vulnerable workers here in the United States.

What's most pernicious is that this essentially mean-spirited and unrealistic bill is being portrayed as a mainstream compromise, and anyone who doesn't jump on-board is an immigration extremist on either the left or right. Worse, the media is creating a moral and political equivalence between those on the right and the left who continue to reject the STRIVE Act. They are both portrayed as unrealistic and inflexible hardliners who are clinging to an extreme position even as the reasonable middle comes to a compromise embodied in STRIVE. This is simply a moronic story told by a moronic press that doesn't have even the minimal mental energy to actually report the story.

Those on the right resisting STRIVE are doing so because of the boogeyman of 'amnesty': they reject any legislation to includes any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Even though STRIVE mandates unrealistic and punative fines, waiting periods, and re-immigration schemes that make a farce of the idea that any but a few could actually take advantage of this so-called 'amnesty', the Minutemen and their ilk continue to reject STRIVE out of hand as a betrayal of their nativist cause.

Those on the left, and in the immigrant rights movement, who reject STRIVE are doing so for much more cogent reasons. The main reason being that by continuing to emphasize enforcement first, the STRIVE Act ensures that the butchers bill in Arizona and New Mexico's deserts will continue to mount while enforcement cracks down but no new legal immigration is allowed. The purely humanitarian concern that the penalty for undocumented economic immigration should not be the death penalty prevents the left from supporting STRIVE. Moreover, the precondition of further militarization of the border is, rightly, seen as ensuring that even the punitive and unrealistic immigration status reforms in STRIVE will never actually be triggered. Finally, even if the the immigration status reforms comes to pass, they are so badly designed that they are unacceptable. STRIVE offers nothing to those who want to make economic immigration well-documented, safe, and beneficial to both nations. There is nothing to negotiate, because there is nothing on offer.

Democrats who have signed on to STRIVE as co-sponsors are, no doubt, well-intentioned and hope to have input into shaping the final bill. But STRIVE is not a legislative remodel, it is a tear-down. The STRIVE Act is fundamentally flawed as public policy. It may be politically necessary at the moment to provide cover for Republicans and vulnerable Democrats by putting enforcement first and requiring certification of performance benchmarks on the border before immigration status reform even begins, but it is disastrously bad policy.

It will likely come to pass that nothing will pass this year, even with Congressional Republican support and the help of President Bush. Both are too politically wounded and compromised by kow-towing to the fringes of their party to pass anything worth while.

We might have to just wait for a Democratic President and an enhanced Democratic majority in Congress for significant and realistic immigration reforms. Tragically, while D.C. dithers, hundreds more will die seeking the American Dream this summer.

Benny Hill on ICE

A bit of video is stirring up a little controversy on YouTube. A dash cam video of a Border Patrol stop of a vehicle carrying a whole lot of, presumably, undocumented immigrants is set to the Benny Hill theme song. Of course, mocking such a serious issue in this way has a lot of panties in bunches. The BP's Inspector General isn't talking, but how this video got into the wild for some wit to put a soundtrack to has surely got to be an question of some interest.

The Coming Democratic Sweep

Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28%, its lowest level yet. Much further and his quip about Laura and his dog being the only ones following him might turn out prophetic. But the Harris poll revealed a few things more than just how disliked Bush is, it revealed how much we Americans dislike our government in general. No one comes out smelling like a rose, except in a highly comparative sense.

Current ratings of president, senior cabinet members and parties in Congress

"How would you rate the job (READ ITEM) are/is doing – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Base: All adults

	Excellent	Pretty Good	Only Fair	Poor	Not Sure	Positive*	Negative**
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice	12	33	29	21	6	45	50
President George W. Bush	7	22	22	48	2	28	70
Democrats in Congress	5	29	34	24	7	35	58
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi	5	25	33	23	14	30	56
Vice President Dick Cheney	5	20	25	44	7	25	68
Defense Secretary Robert Gates	4	25	36	19	16	29	55
Congress	3	24	43	27	4	27	69
Republicans in Congress	3	20	41	33	4	22	74
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid	2	19	35	17	26	22	52

*Positive = excellent or pretty good
**Negative = only fair or poor

The only thing more repellent to the American people than their President seems to be their Vice President. The only thing less popular than the Vice President seems to be the GOP Congressional minority that was just turfed out in the last election. Seems they aren't doing any better in the opposition than they fared in the majority.

Of course, conservatives will crow that the Democratic majority and it's leaders Pelosi and Reid aren't all that much more popular; indeed Pelosi appears almost as toxic as Bush, and Reid fares worse than even Cheney. Problem with that theory is that lots of folks don't even know who Reid and Pelosi are, so the comparison isn't really apt. The more telling metric for Reid, Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are their negatives, which are all well below 60%, whereas the GOP figures are all near or above 70% (save for the outlier Rice, who is demonstrably irrelevant to Administration policy and a damned lackey anyhow).

The poll's Right/Wrong track is also trouble for the GOP in 2008. Even though voters turfed the GOP majority, they are growing ever more disenchanted with the country's direction, shifting another 5 points since the mid-terms. We're still in the territory of the 1994 Republican take over. This means that voters are going to be looking to Democrats for new leadership in the Presidency, and willing to make further changes in Congress. This favors an additional increase in the Democratic majority.

Right Direction or Wrong Track

No Opinion's, Not Sure's and Decline to Answer's Excluded

"Generally speaking, would you say things in the country are going in the right direction or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?"

Base: All adults

	TREND	Right Direction	Wrong Track
		%	%
2007	April	26	67
	February	29	62
2006	November	31	58
	October (10/25)	27	63
	October (10/13)	29	62
	September	31	59
	August	26	64
	July	28	61
	June	28	64
	May	24	69
	April	27	65
	March	31	60
	February	32	59
	January	33	54
2005	November	27	68
	August	37	59
	June	38	55
	January	46	48
2004	September	38	57
	June	35	59
2003	December	35	57
	June	44	51
2002	December	36	57
	June	46	48
2001	December	65	32
	June	43	52
	January	46	39
2000	October	50	41
	June	40	51
	January	50	38
1999	June	37	55
	March	47	45
1998	December	43	51
	June	48	44
1997	December	39	56
	April	36	55
1996	December	38	50
	June	29	64
1995	December	26	62
	June	24	65
1994	December	29	63
	June	28	65

How do I know that this dissatisfaction isn't with the Democrats' handling of their new majority and that the GOP are going storm back into the majority? Because that degree of volatility simply isn't possible in our gerrymandered, incumbent advantaged, money drenched electoral system, for one. But more importantly, the issues that voters are hot for change on are Democratic issues. The war in Iraq and health care are the major drivers of voter dissatisfaction and Democrats own reform on these issues. The GOP prescription for Iraq and health care are more of the same, stay the course, and have a health savings account and a second mortgage to pay for your drugs. The electorate is at a breaking point and the GOP has nothing to offer them on their biggest concerns that isn't already tried and discredited. 2008 will be an even greater Democratic landslide than 2006.

Most Important Issues for Government to Address

"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?"

Spontaneous, unprompted replies

Base: All Adults

	'01	'02	'03	'04	'05	'06	'06	'06	'06	'06	'07	'07
	Dec	Dec	June	Oct	Aug	Feb	June	Aug	Oct	Nov	Feb	April
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
(The) war	12	18	8	35	41	27	27	28	29	33	29	30
Healthcare (not Medicare)	5	10	14	18	11	20	12	12	13	15	12	15
Iraq	-	11	3	9	6	5	8	7	8	10	10	13
The economy (non-specific)	32	34	25	28	19	15	14	16	15	12	9	10
Education	12	11	13	7	8	8	7	8	9	7	7	9
Immigration	1	1	2	2	3	5	20	10	12	11	7	9
Crime/violence	1	2	3	1	3	1	2	3	2	2	2	6
Terrorism	22	17	11	7	7	6	4	9	7	3	9	5
Taxes	6	5	11	8	5	6	4	4	5	5	7	5
Employment/jobs	7	8	8	10	3	5	7	6	6	7	4	5
Environment	1	3	2	1	3	2	3	2	2	2	4	4
Foreign policy (non-specific)	2	4	2	3	2	3	2	2	3	2	4	4
Social Security	3	2	4	4	10	7	5	2	5	4	3	4
Military/defense	4	1	5	3	1	3	4	3	3	3	3	3
Gas and oil prices	X	X	1	1	10	2	8	8	4	1	1	3
Second Amendment (right to bear arms)	*	X	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	2
Religion (decline of)	2	1	1	1	*	*	1	1	1	1	2	2
Domestic/social issues (non-specific)	2	2	1	2	2	*	3	1	*	1	1	2
Homeland/domestic security/public safety	8	9	3	6	2	3	2	4	3	2	3	2
School safety	X	X	2	*	1	1	1	1	*	*	*	2
Energy	X	X	1	1	4	4	4	4	2	1	2	2
Budget/Government spending	X	X	X	X	X	X	5	2	3	3	5	2
Drugs	2	3	3	*	2	1	1	2	1	1	3	2
Poverty	1	2	3	*	4	5	4	3	5	3	2	2
Medicare	1	1	4	3	2	5	1	1	2	3	1	2
Abortion	1	1	1	4	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	2
Peace/nukes	2	2	3	*	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1
Welfare	1	1	3	*	3	1	1	X	1	1	1	1
Family values (decline of)	*	*	1	1	1	*	1	1	1	1	1	1
Election reform	X	1	1	*	1	1	*	1	*	*	2	1
Bush	X	x	x	X	x	1	X	*	1	x	*	1
Downsizing government	*	X	X	1	*	*	1	*	*	*	1	1
AIDS	*	*	2	X	*	*	*	1	*	*	2	1
National security	6	3	6	5	2	2	2	3	2	2	2	1
Homelessness	2	2	1	*	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1
Human/civil/women's rights	1	1	*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1
Ethics in government	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	*	1
Inflation	X	X	X	X	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1
Judiciary	X	X	X	*	2	1	1	*	*	1	1	1
Moral Values	X	X	X	2	2	*	1	1	1	*	1	*
M.E. peace	2	2	2	*	1	1	*	1	*	1	*	*
FEMA	X	X	X	X	X	*	*	1	X	X	*	*
Disaster relief	X	X	X	X	X	1	1	*	*	*	1	*
Same sex rights	X	X	X	1	1	*	2	*	1	*	1	*
Medical research	X	X	2	2	1	2	*	1	*	1	1	*
Air Safety	1	*	*	X	*	X	*	1	X	*	*	*
Other**	3	8	8	8	1	5	6	5	8	8	6	6
Not sure	11	10	12	9	8	6	6	6	10	9	9	8

*Less than 0.5%, X = Not mentioned as specific issue
**Including government/politics (nonspecific), housing, Foreign Aid, trade, disability, promoting democracy, race relations, campaign finance, youth and programs for the elderly (not Medicare/Social Security)
Note: The August column refers to the August 24th release

Methodology: This Harris Poll was conducted online among 1,001 adults April 20-23. Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online. In theory, with a sample of this size, one can say with a 95% probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/-3 percentage points.

---

President Creep

Many have pondered the reason why Presidential campaigns have started earlier and earlier the last few cycles. There are many theories: the pressure to raise ever more money, the front-loading of primaries, the lack of clear front-runners, etc. I think these are all plausible components of an explaination, but none are indespensible.

I'm listening to Joe Eszterhas' "American Rhapsody" on tape in my truck, in which Eszterhas expressed an opinion as to why the 2000 Presidential campaign kicked off much earlier than normal: disgust with Clinton and a desire to get his term over with. Obviously, an earlier start just means a longer campaign, but psychologically, starting sooner means doing something about getting rid of the incumbent sooner. Since impeachment is shamefully 'off the table' for now, the only thing we can do to bring an end of President Bush's term, who now fully 70% of us are disgusted with, is to start electing a new President ASAP.

Considering that Clinton was impeached, though not convicted, perhaps impeachment wouldn't itself prevent campaign creep, even if partially or wholly successful. Clinton at least retained a popular majority, while Bush, despite avoiding impeachment so far, has not. Whenever a President has lost the popular mandate or a claim to legitimacy there will be a strong desire to remedy that vacuum of legitimate leadership. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would might not lessen the desire for a new and popularly elected President. A President Pelosi and the Constitutional issues such a succession would raise would hardly calm the waters of our troubled nation.

In the end, maybe the only thing we can do to prevent the Presidential campaign season from continuing to creep up on us is to stop electing charming lying creeps to the Presidency who we later can't wait to show the door.

Renzi to give Democrats a Blue Arizona Delegation?

UPDATE 4/27: Looks like Renzi is putting up a fight. This should be entertaining and embarrassing for the GOP. Every day Renzi hangs on is another day of negative press that helps CD 1's voters decide that a Democrat might better represent their interests.

Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion is predicting Renzi's resignation by tomorrow. I don't know if it will happen quite that soon, but I wouldn't be surprised. The signs are all flashing red. The GOP leadership has completely shut Renzi down, allowing him to save face by resigning from his committee positions and caucus funding programs instead of stripping him outright. Renzi is essentially under House arrest (little pun).

I believe the whispers of Renzi's impending resignation are largely accurate not only because my schaudenfruede runneth over, but because Renzi has made himself a major liability to the GOP's capo di tuti capo: President Bush. Renzi is focusing yet more light on the Administration's biggest headache, Attorneygate. The GOP leadership has got to want him out of Congress to minimize his press profile and get ahead of the inevitable calls for his resignation. The GOP leadership's tolerance for ethical and legal troubles has taken a steep dive since losing their majority, largely on that issue.

If the FBI hadn't raided the Renzis' Patriot Insurance Co., there wouldn't be nearly this pressure: compare Renzi's dilemma to Wilson and Dominici in NM, who are guilty of much more naked pressure on their USA than is Renzi. Unfortunately for Renzi, the appearance of an attempt to improperly influence a USA combined with a genuine underlying crime that the FBI is serving warrants on and Federal Grand Jury is sitting on equals a get out of Congress free card.

So, our Governor will need to set a special election to replace Renzi, since we are more than 6 months out from a general election and Renzi is not going to survive until next month, let alone the middle of next year. Within 105 days of the resignation, when it comes, there will be primary elections. Given the extremely short time horizon, only those with existing name recognition, political reputation, and lots of friends with money need apply. My money is on Kirkpatrick or Simon for the Democrats.

I think the Republicans are irrelevant unless the national and state parties throw major bank on a candidate, which is certainly possible. Even then, the likelihood of the GOP retaining the seat, as Renzi's shame unravels in the midst of the special election, seems slim unless the GOP candidate can steer clear of any bruising in the primary and has a compelling story as to why he's not more of the same.

Within 45 days of the primaries, a general election must be held. If the predictions of a early resignation by Renzi are correct, we could be in general election in CD 1 by September. At that point, Arizona's Congressional delegation will most likely turn blue as we pick up CD 1, which we should have won 2008, for a 5D/3R delegation.

Way Early Presidential Polling

NAU's Social Research Laboratory apparently having nothing better to do with its funding decided to run a Presidential poll.Download srl_release_2008_election_matchups.pdf The poll was conducted April 13-19, 2007 among 493 randomly selected, registered Arizona voters. Survey results are valid at a +/- 4.5 percent margin of error, at a 95% confidence level. Unfortunately, I don't know what ratios of party registration of participants was used for the survey. I'll assume that they were fairly representative of the current statewide ratios for party preference in the state, but the choice of that ratio makes a huge difference in this sort of head-to-head polling.

I think name recognition, a wider field of candidates, positive and negative views, and likelihood of voting for a candidate in the preference election, not head-to-heads would have been more interesting and productive. This sort of poll really sheds very little light on how Arizonans are feeling; as you will see, there is surprising little useful information to be had. Our esteemed opposites over at Arizona 8th have taken their cut on the numbers and drawn their own conclusions, most of which I disagree with, of course.

The biggest noise will probably come from the Edwards camp. The polling shows Edwards as the strongest nominee among the top 3 in the survey. (please ignore the spelling error of Giuliani in the charts - I've beaten my personal assistant for the error already; commenting on his error will just humiliate him further)

Clearly, getting your ass handed to you by 2 out of 3 likely nominees is hardly much to brag about. But Edwards does perform slightly stronger than either Clinton or Obama overall, and beats Romney handily (though not outside the MoE, as Arizona 8th mistakenly states).

In contrast to Edwards, Clinton does a clean sweep, getting demolished by all 3 potential nominees.

This result may be indicative of a great deal of animosity and/or apprehension by independent voters regarding Senator Clinton. That they would vote for a relative unknown like Romney over the well-known Senator indicates a problem when contrasted with the results of the other two Democrats.

Obama's numbers are very similar to Edwards', but insignificantly lower (0-3%, and no difference when facing John McCain).

In gross terms (the only ones that arguably could matter this far out), Obama and Edwards are the same: both beat the money leader, Romney, and are beaten by the heir apparent, McCain, and the likely beneficiary of McCain's on-going flame-out, Giuliani.

I think McCain's campaign is on life support. His thorough thrashing on the Daily Show yesterday and his fund raising problems indicate he's hit a terminal phase. His message on Iraq is a rotting albatross around his neck. I feel pretty strongly that he's not going to make it to an Arizona preference primary to benefit of the favorite son effect. Hence, I don't think it matters all that much how McCain did in this poll, except that he did not significantly outperform Giuliani. What would have been much more illuminating is a Giuliani-McCain head-to-head; I suspect that such a poll would be much closer than it should be considering this is McCain's home state.

This poll does show that Giuliani can win in Arizona just as strongly as McCain. That gives Giuliani some substantial rhetorical armament: he performs as strongly as McCain in the Senator's own state. That's a good argument for McCain's irrelevance.

As for Romney's showing, I put it down to the fact that voters just don't know him. With a substantial and politically powerful Mormon population in Arizona, I fully expect him to be more than competitive in Arizona. I don't think he'd be a push-over for any Democrat.

So how to read this poll for the Democrats? Well, it doesn't have much to read. It is missing Richardson, who I think would do well in Arizona, being Governor next door and very much a Democrat in the mold of Napolitano. It also doesn't account for the looming presence just off stage left of Vice President Al Gore. If he were to enter the race, CW changes instantly. Not including him in these head to heads was a mistake, in my view, even though he's not announced.

There are only two strong and sure facts to carry away from this poll: Democrats are going to have to work very hard to take Arizona in 2008, even with the Iraq war and all the other baggage of the GOP, no matter who their nominee is; and, McCain's weakness is made glaringly clear by his results in comparison to Giuliani.

Bringin' It Again in 2008

Democrat Lord’s Work at Fundraising Draws Rare Look at Arizona District - New York Times.

Since Bushco has had their asses handed to them in Iraq, you would think that GOPers would be somewhat circumspect about using a certain testosterone-laden taunt for fear that it would come back to haunt them. But no. They will continue to use it; all they have left is empty bravado. And in 2008, when Shadegg is an ex Congresscritter, they may rue this bit of chest thumping in today's NYT:

Noble, Shadegg’s spokesman, gave a more confrontational response: “To any of the Democrats who think they might want to take on Congressman Shadegg, he says he’ll crush them in votes and he’ll crush them in fundraising, and bring it on!”

My hope is that when Bob Lord stands up to declare victory on election night that he will remind Shadegg and his minions that to crush your opponents in a democracy, you need at least a plurality of voters to believe you are actually serving their interests, not just to behave like a genital-waggling pro wrestler in a 'roid rage. Really, that's the current GOP's biggest problem in a nutshell: too much genital waggling, too few results.

Understanding Iraq Though Real Journalism

If you really want to understand what will happen in Iraq, I contend, you have to understand what the people of Iraq want. You have to understand how the people of Iraq think, what they are actually trying to accomplish. Iraq is not a helpless blank slate upon which mighty America writes its will. Far from it. The past several years have demonstrated yet again for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear the limits of military power - even if you are a 'Superpower'.

There are lots of people who can tell you what Iraqis are really thinking and doing, because they are actually listening, instead of projecting their own agenda and wishful thinking upon Iraq. Such people we used to call journalists. Now, that profession has become so infested with what we used to call propagandists that we really need a new word. I'll just call such people real journalists for the lack of anything better. One such real journalist who has been tirelessly and bravely talking to everyone on every side of this conflict is Nir Rosen.

Nir recently appeared on Fareed Zakaria's Foreign Exchange, where he did something fairly hard to do: he made Fareed seem uniformed and naive. It's well worth watching, and alone blows away much of the murk and bullshit that has been piled on topic of the future of Iraq (Nir's appearance begins at 11:28, but the whole episode is worth watching, as usual):

If you are interested in hearing more from this courageous and intrepid journalist, You should consider reading his book on Iraq, "In the Belly of the Green Bird," which is available in the local library and through most booksellers. Nir also has a homepage with links to his most recent publications, all of which are well worth reading.

Thank goodness we still have a media free enough to provide us with honest voices like Nir's. If we listen, we might actually be able to handle this mess and minimize the inevitable blow-back from our leaders' monstrous stupidity, cupidity, and gullibility.

Untrustworthy Renzi... No Intel for You!

By now most have received the news that Rick Renzi is under investigation by a Tucson-based Grand Jury and that the FBI has raided his wife's insurance business to seize records. This is really just the second shoe to drop, however. Most who have followed Renzi's slimy trail for any length of time have been expecting that size 12 to drop at any time, even though the voters in CD 1 successfully ignored Mr. Renzi's alleged ethical and legal peccadilloes to re-elect the sleazebag.

Here is the Channel 3 coverage of Renzi's shame, in case you didn't catch it (thanks to the AZDP for YouTubing the footage):

What I find most interesting about this affair is what other coverage has glossed over with a mere mention: Renzi stepped down from his post as the ranking minority member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence Oversight. This is a very influential and important assignment; Renzi would not abandon this post voluntarily, just as he has not stepped down from any other committee assignments as a result of recent events. Why resign from that committee?

The answer is that internal committee rules require members of the Select Intelligence committees to have, in effect, security clearances, which are monitored by the House and Senate Security Offices. One reason to pull such a security clearance is that the member is under investigation for criminal activity, even if he has not yet been indicted or convicted. Anyone in Renzi's position is a security risk because of their compromised legal position, or their poor character and judgment, or both.

So, why did Renzi step down from the Select Intel Committee? Because his security clearance has been pulled by the House Security Office, and he had to. He might sell state secrets to Al Qaeda for a few million in an offshore account to tide him over if he has to flee with his wife and their dozen or so rug rats to someplace without an extradition treaty. Not really... but someone in a position to be easily manipulated, or who may have a very unethical nature should not have access to the NSA's black budgets.

It's a minor point, really, considering the oncoming freight train of hurt bearing down on Dickie Renzi, but I hate loose ends and unexplained bits of a story.

The GOP and "Voter Fraud"

Enough said...

Taking the LEED in energy efficiency

HB2496 schools; energy and water savings (Mason, J. Burns, Aboud, et al.), having passed the House 56-3, now awaits action by the Senate Committee of the Whole. Every citizen concerned with the environment and energy independence should encourage its passage. The bill creates an incentive for installing energy and water saving systems and techniques.

Schools will be allowed to borrow the estimated cost savings from more efficient systems over a ten year horizon to invest in the new energy or water saving measures that make those savings possible. Financing from utility companies and system vendors will pay for the water and energy saving systems, with performance guarantees that ensure taxpayers don't pay if the vendors' estimates are inaccurate. This mechanism provides an opportunity for schools to invest in cost-effective measures that save money, energy, and water with no additional expenditures by tax-payers.

The bill is a creative financing mechanism for existing schools that could save the state millions over the next decade without costing taxpayers a dime. The next measure that should be instituted in this area is life-cycle costing of new construction of schools and other public buildings. Instead of measuring the cost of a building by looking only at the cost of construction in isolation, public projects should be costed to include a reasonable period of operational costs.

For a public building, that period of operation is at least 20 years, and often considerably longer. But even at a 20 year operational horizon, the cost effectiveness of environmentally-friendly high energy and water efficient system become economically compelling. Structures using LEED guidelines for energy use and sustainability outperform less expensive (and less efficient) designs due to greatly lowered operational costs.

By folding in at least a portion of the building's total operational costs into the design parameters, state and local governments can achieve significant long-term cost efficiencies that benefit taxpayers. A very good in-depth discussion of the cost efficiencies of green buildings is provided by the report of California's Sustainable Building Task Force (PDF).

In 2005, our Governor mandated by executive order (PDF) that all new buildings within the executive department be constructed using at minimum Silver LEED standards. It is time for the rest of our constitutional branches and local governments to follow suit in seizing the long-term cost savings such LEED rating provides.

It is time to recognize that energy and water efficiency and sustainable development make better economic sense than ignoring future operational costs when planning for a new public structure. In fact, many high-efficiency features make economic sense over a time horizon of as little as 4-5 years, making them cost effective even for residential homes, whose average term of occupancy is about that length.

Sustainable building is cost effective; the challenge is now to get our public and financial institutions to recognize and act on that fact. Heck, it makes so much economic sense that even WalMart is now building green. If a bottom-line obsessed company like WalMart can see the befits, why can't our governments?

Bush's Positive Legacy

In America, we tend to naively consider politicians to be pure embodiments of either good or bad forces. We seldom view their acts as the products of fallible humans. One bothersome side effect is our personal selective editing of the legacies of every President depending on our political allegiances. For those Presidents we like, we tend to overlook the harm they did and the mistakes and expedient compromises they've made; for those we don't like, we tend to ignore any positive actions they've taken and focus only on the harmful.

For instance, though I like Clinton a great deal, and think that his effect on the nation was a net positive, it is sometimes hard to criticize some things he did without other Democrats considering me to be some sort of crypto-Republican. NAFTA, Welfare "Reform", his half-hearted integration of gender differences in the military, his creation and promotion of the DLC as a force within the Democratic party, his many personal ethical lapses, they are all part of Clinton's negative legacy and they are decidedly not the positive parts of his legacy.

And on the other side, while I despise Nixon, I have to admire and laud his passage of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air and Water Acts, and his proposal for a guaranteed minimum income for every American. He may have been a terrible person who was dangerously unsuited to Presidency, but some good work got done on his watch and he played a role in making some positive changes for the nation.

Politicians are people, not demiurges of good or evil. In the interest of historical perspective and to counter the far-too-frequently leveled allegation that we on the left are just "bashing Bush" when we criticize his policies, it behooves us to reflect and dig down deep and find some examples of Bush actions and initiatives that we applaud and support, or at least don't despise.

Take the perspective of a historian 50 years in the future, if you must, to find some aspect of the Bush legacy that one can praise. Your praise doesn't have to be unequivocal, and the issue doesn't have to positive beyond any debate, just search for things that are arguably and/or mostly positive.

I'm not saying this will be easy - I am hard pressed to come up with any myself - that is why I am writing this. This is a project that clearly requires a group mind to do it justice.

Here's my contributions:

• Though the bill and it's implementation are severely flawed, the No Child Left Behind act established a bi-partisan precedent for addressing poor school performance (a traditionally state function) on a national level.

• By his utter and obvious favoritism toward Israel, Bush awakened many in the United States to the injustice of the apartheid system by which Israel rules the occupied territory, laying the foundation for popular American support for a just peace settlement.

• The speedy and flexible response to 9/11 in taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was a model use of special forces to punish a rogue regime, despite the flaws in execution that allowed Al Qaeda to escape largely intact.

• The abuse of secrecy by the Bush Administration in the name of 'national security' to cover illegal detention, extra-judicial deportation, assassination, torture, illegal wiretapping and other crimes eventually awoke the American people to danger of not knowing what their government was doing, leading to the passage in the subsequent Administration of sweeping government secrecy reforms.

Now, you give it a try. What can you find to praise about the Bush Administration? Hopefully, at least a few can be less conjectural and backhanded than my poor few examples. Help create a list that liberals can use to prove that we are open to all of Bush's legacy, not just the overwhelmingly evil super-majority.

Reading Liberally 4/16

Reading Liberally meets Monday 4/16 at 7pm. 

Drinking Liberally regulars Gloria and Andre have kindly offered to host. Soup will be served starting at 6:30pm. Please feel free to bring munchies and/or beverages of your choice, both with and without alcohol. 

The book, if you haven't read it yet, is Ghost Planes by Stephen Grey. If you don't want to read the whole book, but want to join us for the discussion, here's a link to some information about the book: http://www.ghostplane.net/

Gloria and Andre are at 4100 N Tortolita Rd. (Map it) Take Oracle north to Wetmore, turn west, Wetmore becomes Ruthrauff and then becomes Camino del Cerro after I-10.  Several miles on Camino del Cerro, past Silverbell, past Camino de Oeste to Tortolita Rd. Turn south on Tortolita Rd, continue 1 mile to the dead end sign. The house is on the left, 2 purple stucco walls mark the driveway. If you get lost call 743-3253.
See you there!

New Squidoo Lens for AZ CD 8

I decided to try my hand at putting together a Squidoo Lens (a special site for bringing together internet resources into one page) for following the votes of Representative for CD 8 Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ) and news and information about her. The result is online and I invite you to visit and shoot me any suggestions for additional information to include. I encourage people in other Congressional Districts to make similar Lenses for their own district and to join a group I made for Squidoo Congressional District Lenses, so you can better know your district.

Repeal the Red Menace

When the last time you worried about the international communistic conspiracy? Unless you are rather outside the mainstream of American politics, it's probably been nearly 20 years since you've considered communism a genuine threat to our way of life. But yet, as with many other obsessions and scares, our political history remains in written in our laws. The red scares of the 50s and 60s are no different. The statutory ban on the organization of any communist party remains in Arizona's statutes.

They are a bit of hoot to read now, redolent of a style of earnest propaganda that seems ham-fisted and ludicrous to our more jaded ears. There are also precursors and intimations of the current and enduring themes of jingo, alarmum, and agitprop. There are even a few choice gems in bold that make clear just how unmoored from earlier political realities today's Republican party has become; several of the legislatures' findings about the subversive nature and goals of the communists unmistakably apply to factions within the Republican coalition and Administration of today.

Here are the relevant sections:

16-805.  Findings of fact and statement of public policy by the legislature of the state of Arizona concerning steps which must be taken to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of this state and the safety of this state from international Communistic conspiracy

     A.  Upon evidence and proof which has been presented before this legislature, other state legislatures, the Congress of the United States and in the courts of the United States and in the courts of the several states; and although recognizing that the federal constitution vests the conduct of foreign relations in the federal government and the federal constitution guarantees to the several states a republican form of government and protection against foreign invasion and domestic violence, this state has the duty of self-preservation and the taking of necessary measures to cooperate with the federal government in the preservation of the peace and safety of the state of Arizona and in order to carry out article II, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution relating to free and equal elections and article VII, section 12 of the Arizona Constitution relating to the enactment of laws to secure the purity of elections; and in order to guard against the abuse of the elective franchise by the Communist Party of the United States which from time to time has qualified as a purported legitimate political party in the state of Arizona; and in order to secure to the citizens of this state their unalienable personal rights and liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of the Constitution of Arizona and in order to protect the peace and safety of the state of Arizona from the overthrow of its constitutional government by force or violence, and of its political subdivisions, the legislature of the state of Arizona finds and declares that, unlike other political parties which have evolved their policy and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement.

     B.  The Communist Party members have no part in determining its goals and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives.  Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains.  Unlike legitimate political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members.  The Communist Party is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means.  The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States, the governments of the several states, and the government of the state of Arizona and its political subdivisions ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.

     C.  The establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in any country results in the suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the subordination of the rights of individuals to the state, the denial of fundamental rights and liberties which are characteristic of a representative form of government, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship, and said totalitarian dictatorship ruthlessly suppresses academic freedom and inquiry into any human knowledge except the official doctrines of the dictatorship.  This results in the maintenance of control over the people through fear, terrorism and brutality.

     D.  It is the public policy of this state to protect the safety of the constitutional government of the state of Arizona by constitutional means and at the same time protect the rights of the members of our free society to speak, to assemble and to inquire, including the principle of academic freedom which by fostering healthy self-criticism is especially vital in the progress of man's moral values and in man's exploration of the secrets of the atom on this planet and in outer space.  To protect the safety of this state and the right of free citizens in a free society to inquire and to understand totalitarianism, it is essential that the schools, colleges and universities teach objectively and critically the governmental and social forms of past and present totalitarian slave states, including the foreign languages spoken therein. The rights set forth in this subsection do not include the right to embrace Communism or to attempt to persuade others to embrace Communism.

     E.  The direction and control of the world Communist movement is vested in and exercised by the Communist dictatorship of a foreign country.

     F.  The Communist dictatorship of such foreign country, in exercising such direction and control and in furthering the purposes of the world Communist movement, establishes or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various countries, action organizations which are not free and independent organizations, but are sections of a worldwide Communist organization and are controlled, directed and subject to the discipline of the Communist dictatorship of such foreign country.

     G.  The Communist action organizations so established and utilized in various countries, acting under such control, direction and discipline, endeavor to carry out the objectives of the world Communist movement by bringing about the overthrow of existing governments by any available means, including force or violence if necessary, and setting up Communist totalitarian dictatorships which will be subservient to the most powerful existing Communist totalitarian dictatorship.  Although such organizations usually designate themselves as political parties, they are in fact constituent elements of the worldwide Communist movement and promote the objectives of such movement by conspiratorial and coercive tactics, instead of through the democratic processes of a free elective system or through the freedom-preserving means employed by a legitimate political party which operates as an agency by which people govern themselves.

     H.  In the United States and in this state those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States and this state, and in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist movement.

     I.  The Communist movement in the several states is an organization numbering thousands of adherents, rigidly and ruthlessly disciplined. Awaiting and seeking to advance at a moment when the several states may be so far extended by foreign engagements, so far divided in counsel, or so far in industrial or financial straits, that overthrow of the government of the United States and of the several states by force or violence may seem possible of achievement, it seeks converts far and wide by an extensive system of schooling and indoctrination.  Such preparations by Communist organizations in other countries, including the recent events in the neighboring country of Cuba, have aided in supplanting existing governments.  The Communist organization in the United States and in the several states, pursuing its stated objectives, the recent successes of Communist methods in other countries and the nature and control of the world Communist movement itself, present a clear and present danger to the security of the government of the United States, the governments of the several states and the government of the state of Arizona, including its political subdivisions, that make it necessary that the state of Arizona enact appropriate legislation, recognizing the existence of such worldwide Communist conspiracy, and designed to prevent it from accomplishing its purposes in this state and its political subdivisions.  Therefore, the Communist Party should not be permitted to avail itself of the privileges, rights and immunities conferred by law upon legitimate political parties.

16-806.  Proscription of Communist Party of United States, its successors, and subsidiary organizations

     The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, the object of which is to overthrow by force or violence the government of the United States, or the government of the state of Arizona, or its political subdivisions shall not be entitled to be recognized or certified as a political party under the laws of the state of Arizona and shall not be entitled to any of the privileges, rights or immunities attendant upon legal political bodies recognized under the laws of the state of Arizona, or any political subdivision thereof; whatever rights, privileges or immunities shall have heretofore been granted to said Communist Party of the United States as defined in this section, or to any of its subsidiary organizations, by reason of the laws of the state of Arizona, or of any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated and shall be void.

Perhaps it is time to remove this hysterical stain from our laws. You'll know the truly brave legislator by his least popular works: no one is going to score any political points by sponsoring legislation to abolish these sections, but it should be done, and this sad chapter of our political history should finally be closed. Perhaps we can get the ball rolling by replacing this bit of fear-mongering with an updated ban concerning any fundamentalist religious parties which do not recognize the separation between church and state - but perhaps that would cut a bit too close to the bone for the GOP.

 

My Lifetime by Francine Shacter

Francine Shacter, former candidate for the Democratic nomination to Congress in CD 8, recorded this commentary on the enduring ideals that define the Democratic party and the need to reconnect with our role as the champions of the average American. Francine looks forward to reaffirming in 21st century those bedrock values that made the American Dream flourish in the 20th.

The Way Down South

I only very rarely can honestly say that I absolutely agree with every word of an article I have read. It is rare that an author states what I already believe to be true, and it is an extra special treat when an author is able to actually change my mind and get me to agree unreservedly. Bob Moser in The Way Down South, written for The Nation, did just that, and I strongly urge you to go and read every word.

I was one of those who endorsed the "no South" strategy for President. I was one who joined in the chorus of "fuck the South" after 2004. I strongly believed that the future of the Democratic party was in the inter-mountain west and desert southwest. I still believe that we stand to make significant gains here, but Moser convinced me it would be unethical and counter-productive to the health and vitality of our party to write off the South. I am guilty of having a stereotyped and narrow view of southern states, which is inexcusable as I have spent considerable time in the South and know first-hand the populist resentment that boils beneath the surface, and the progressive views on race, culture, and government flourishing in the new urban South. I believe I was wrong, and to the extent that you might share my former discouragement about Democratic chances in the South, I encourage you to re-examine your premises and read Moser's article.

The 2006 elections has lessons to teach us, and I think we are still absorbing the lessons. One of the lessons is that populist and progressive Democrats can and do win everywhere in America; in rural areas, in the south, and in other Republican "strongholds". We have to ask for citizens' votes everywhere and not neglect to show up and explain our values and our philosophy.

We have also learned that Republican-lite candidates, such as the DLC would urge us to offer, have failed and will continue to fail in Southern states. We need strong and unapologetic liberals and progressives who can and will make the case for Democratic values, including a secular separation between church and state. If we are going to win, state, local and national races in 2006 all point to the conclusion that we're going to do it as real Democrats, not technocrats, televangelists, or triangulators.

We have to contest every state, every county, and every precinct. We have to keep in mind that even in areas we haven't carried in the past there are 30%, 40%, or even 49.9% of voters who agree with us and will give us their votes - and many more are so discouraged that haven't voted who probably agree with us, too. If we don't show up, we forfeit the right to convince more people that we're right, and condemn some of our citizens to hearing only one side of the story. Thanks to Bob Moser for putting that simple truth front and center in my mind and reminding me that our Democratic party is so named because we are the party of the people, all the people, everywhere - especially in the South, where we are needed more than ever to help the powerless find their voice.

DFA Peace Forum

Mohur Sidhwa Speaks Out on Theocracy vs. Democracy

Our own Mohur Sidhwa, Chairperson the Democratic Party in LD 28 and First Vice-Chair of Pima County, recorded a commentary recently on science and religion and the necessary separation of the two. Mohur grew up amid sexism and religious intolerance in the land of her birth and escaped to a place she expected to be different. That difference is quickly being eroded. I wish Mohur had related more of her personal history in her commentary, but know that hers is the voice of experience, as well as that of wisdom.

Drinking with a Liberal Mind

Last Thursday at Drinking Liberally our guest was the decidedly conservative Frank Antenori, a former Green Beret and 2006 candidate for the Republican nomination to CD8 who was beat out by Randy Graf.

I received more than one complaint about my choice to bring a conservative to a liberal party, but I believe that such dialog (regardless of the volume at which is conducted) is essential to liberalism. Some may believe that it isn't worthwhile to understand the views of your opponents, but they make the same mistake for which we criticize this Administration: failure to understand your opponent is fatal. Worse, not understanding your opponent dooms you to fight him on every issue, rather than understanding how to enlist his cooperation or aid in reaching many of your goals.

It is undoubtedly pleasant to pass the evening over a few beers amongst a sea of heads nodding to your every utterance, but it is essential to cultivation of a truly liberal mind-set to test your assumptions with exposure to views much different than your own. Being liberal means being fact-based and open-minded, not rigidly ideological. A very valuable foil to complacency and the echo-chamber effect, which has so harmed the Republican party, is to seriously listen to other viewpoints and provide reasons why you disagree with them. At its best, dialog gives you not only a deeper appreciation and understanding of your opponent's views, but also of your own.

I don't expect, nor should liberals in general expect, to be able to change the minds of conservatives with whom they converse. That is not the goal of dialog. The goal is simply to understand the views of the other side better, and to explain your own cogently. Frank certainly didn't change his mind on anything, as far as I know; nor did any of us. But we exchanged information and understood each other better. The only end to the empty rhetoric and demonization between the parties that is poisoning our politics is better understanding.

That said, the conservatism of the Republicans who have thus far been our guests at Drinking Liberally (Frank Antenori, Ray Carroll, Jon Paton) are of a decidedly more pragmatic, libertarian, limited-government, low taxation, pro-business, traditional conservative bent. We haven't had any of the real far-right exemplars as yet, and I'm not sure if we will (what do you think?). The sort of Republicans I have been inviting are liberals' natural allies, working partners, and loyal opposition. They are practical people with whom liberals can reason and get things done, and who can keep us grounded and honest.

We will certainly always have many more liberal guests than conservative ones (if only because it takes a certain intestinal fortitude for a conservative to agree to attend), but we will continue to occasionally host conservatives in the future. If you don't want your views challenged, if you want to inhabit an intellectual hot-house wherein you never encounter true disagreement, and you don't want to practice the diversity and intellectual rigor that is the bleeding heart of liberalism, then you might want to skip those Drinking Liberally sessions which feature a conservative guests.

Prop 200 Suppressing Minority Voting

I've long argued that the main point of Protect Arizona Now! (aka Prop 200) is really not to prevent voter fraud (as there really is no such thing as individual vote fraud anymore - much easier and effective to just reprogram the tabulators), but to suppress the electoral participation of legally eligible minority voters. Well, the evidence is in and what many, including myself, had presumed has turned out to be exactly right (here I am trying blatantly to boost your confirmation bias in favor of myself as an accurate prognosticator...), PAN and other voter ID laws have the effect of reducing minority participation in those states that have such laws by as much as 10%.

Here's the skinny:

Just last month, the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University presented new research findings to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that suggest Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans are less likely to vote as a result of increasingly restrictive voter ID requirements. The Eagleton study examined the 2004 election and concluded that in states requiring voters to present an ID at the polls, voters were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters were merely required to state their names. Latinos were 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian-Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote and African Americans 5.7 percent less likely to vote.

What this means is that the bastards who promoted these laws are really out to disenfranchise Americans, not prevent foreigners from voting fraudulently; or, if that was not their object, they've done an uncannily good job of accomplishing an unintended consequence that so many warned them of that if they didn't intend it, then they are just incompetent idiots, rather than racist louts.

More important than the assignment of blame, however, is the legal jeopardy that these findings represent to such voter ID laws. These laws have been looked askance by the federal courts before, now courts are likely to get another crack at them. There is now demonstrable evidence of a disparate impact upon protected classes - racial and ethnic minorities, and possibly national origin - under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection jurisprudence. Without any evidence that these laws are actually addressing a compelling governmental purpose, i.e. preventing voter fraud, they are very susceptible to constitutional challenge. I suspect it will not be long before we are seeing a challenge to these laws in federal courts, hopefully in time to banish these abominations before the 2008 elections.

Ford splits with Democrats

Link: Ford splits with Democrats on Iraq

Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving," Mr. Ford said.

Actually, Mr. Ford, most Americans, and certainly most Democrats understand there is no longer a military solution in Iraq, and continuing a failed policy of military occupation is only prolonging the pain and getting our troops killed needlessly.

Why is it again that Democrats tolerate the DLC? What benefit do they confer on our party that we put up with DLC members like Ford, From, and Lieberman hold our party hostage to their agenda and undermine our party's stated positions with the American public. When your 'allies' are busy thrusting a dagger into your back at every opportunity, why should we continue to call them allies?

Arizona's Governor and our other elected Democrats who are members of the DLC need to address the question of whether they agree with Mr. Ford, or if they repudiate his head-in-in-sand approach to the problem of the Iraq occupation.