Blog For Arizona

Charter schools in Chicago not doing so well

by David Safier

There have been a whole bunch of articles lately about how online "cyber" schools haven't racked up impressive education results. Lots of students bail and return to their old schools. Lots of others stay but never graduate. The schools are wonderful for some students and horrible for many others. But since the online school industry is propelled by the profit motive, it demands more students, so the sales pitches, amplified by the "education reform" folks, are running at fever pitch. The online lobbies have even gotten some state legislatures to require every student to take at least one online course to graduate.

Now come a few articles out of Chicago about brick-and-mortar charter schools, which were pitched big time in the city as a way to boost student achievement by lots of folks, including Obama's Ed Supe Arne Duncan, who used to head the Chicago schools. Things don't look very good.

. . . new research suggests many charters in Chicago are performing no better than traditional neighborhood schools and some are actually doing much worse.

More than two dozen schools in some of the city's most prominent and largest charter networks, including the United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), Chicago International Charter Schools, University of Chicago and LEARN, scored well short of district averages on key standardized tests.

Charter school supporters argue, correctly, test scores alone don't indicate the success or failure of a school. If your students begin at low achievement levels, even if they improve, the school's scores will lag behind schools whose students began with better scores.

True. But you know, there are millions of private dollars supporting charters. Tens of millions. Hundreds of millions. How is it, then, that no one has spent the money to conduct a study assessing the progress of students in charters compared to similar students in district schools? The data should be readily available if a Gates Foundation or a Walton Foundation wants to fund the research. Pull together test scores of individual students over the years to see how much each of them has progressed. Compare students who began in similar places in various schools -- district and charter schools. If students in School A show more progress than in School B, you can say School A is likely doing a better job, based on the data.

If no one has stepped forward with the dollars to fund the research, I can only conclude, they're worried the study won't come out in favor of charters. They would rather have deniability -- "Your data isn't conclusive" -- than evidence showing charters as a group are no more effective than their district school counterparts.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to keynote Arizona Democratic Party's 2011 Hall of Fame Reception

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Event announcement from the Arizona Democratic Party:

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be our keynote speaker at our Hall of Fame Reception on December 9.

Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz is excited by our progress in Arizona, and she believes as I do that the wind is at our backs heading into 2012. This month, Arizona voters launched a new era of responsible leadership. For the first time in 20 years, both Tucson and Phoenix elected Democratic mayors. And for the first time in American history, a state legislative leader was recalled from office -- a victory for mainstream solutions over extreme ideology. As Arizona Democrats, we must now unite and show that we are prepared to win in 2012.

Click here to RSVP and purchase your ticket.

So much is at stake in 2012. Not only will we battle to deliver Arizona’s electoral votes to re-elect President Obama, but we can help the U.S. Senate stay in Democratic control by electing a Democrat to Arizona’s first open Senate seat in nearly two decades. And we have the chance to elect more strong Democrats to Congress and gain seats in the state Legislature.

The Arizona Democratic Party is excited to host the DNC chairwoman and eager to hear what she sees for Arizona in 2012 and how we will get there.

Doors will open at 6 p.m. so guests can tour the Heard Museum. Exhibits will be open for attendees to enjoy. Please click here for more event information.

UPDATE: We are happy to announce our Hall of Fame selection committee has made a decision on the 2011 inductees.

Hall of Fame Inductees:

Ben Furlong

Former Yavapai County Chair.

Jaime Gutiérrez and Linda Mazon Gutiérrez

Former State Senator and Arizona community leader.

Debbie McCune Davis

State Legislator for District 14.

David Mendoza

Currently the Political Action Representative for AFSCME International.

Harry Mitchell

Former Congressman, Mayor of Tempe, State Senator, and State Party Chair.

Senator Obstruction supports a tax increase on 113 million workers rather than the top 0.2 percent

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senate Democrats hope to extend the "payroll tax holiday" this week as the only economic stimulus that Tea-Publicans have agreed to in the past. But now Tea-Publicans are balking at something they have supported in the past. Why? Because Democrats want to pay for it to offset any deficit spending (Paygo) by imposing a small surtax on the top 0.2 percent of income earners -- the über-rich.

To which Arizona's embarrassment Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, says "Hell no!" Political Animal - Saturday’s Jon Kyl vs. Sunday’s Jon Kyl:

On Saturday, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), along with his five other GOP colleagues from the super-committee, wrote a Washington Post op-ed on the debt-reduction process. Kyl’s point wasn’t subtle: he and other Republicans just can’t accept tax increases, at least for the foreseeable future.

Kyl called tax increases “the wrong medicine for our ailing economy,” and said the mere possibility of tax increases has “put a wet blanket over job creation and economic recovery.”

That was Saturday. Just 24 hours later, Kyl told a national television audience he’s comfortable with a payroll tax increase on all American workers on 2012.

The No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl, expressed concern on Sunday about President Obama’s proposal to continue a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax and questioned whether the tax cut had fostered the creation of jobs, as Democrats say.

Mr. Kyl’s comments offered a preview of a fight looming in the Senate, which plans to vote this week on the proposal to extend the payroll tax “holiday” enacted last December. 

To justify his position, Kyl argued on Fox News, “The payroll tax holiday has not stimulated job creation.”

As a factual matter, most economists believe the payroll tax break has helped, and I’d remind Kyl that job growth in 2011 is the strongest the U.S. economy has seen in five years. For that matter, I’m not sure when Kyl suddenly discovered an interest in efficacy anyway — the Bush tax agenda didn’t stimulate job creation, and Kyl nevertheless loves the policy and wants to make it permanent.

* * *

First, Democrats plan to pay for a payroll tax-cut extension with a slight increase on taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires. Since Kyl is only really concerned with protecting their wealth, he necessarily sees such a trade off as unacceptable.

Second, and on a related note, Kyl does not believe all taxes are created equal. Saturday’s op-ed railed against tax increases, but he was referencing Democratic efforts to ask more from the very wealthy. Sunday’s comments, meanwhile, were about tax breaks that benefit all American workers, most notably the middle class. Kyl’s focus is on the rich, and if taxes go up on working families, he hardly sees this as a problem to be avoided.

Here is the economics analysis from Greg Sargent Payroll tax cut for workers would be funded by tiny group of wealthy Americans - The Plum Line:

The dispute is over how to fund the extension. As a spokesman for John Boehner put it, extending the tax cut is a “potential area for common ground,” but it’s a nonstarter if it’s coupled “with a job-killing tax hike on small businesses.”

So it’s time to check in again with the non-partisan Citizens for Tax Justice to determine exactly what this surtax would mean — how many people it would impact, and how much in additional taxes they would have to pay.

Here’s the answer, provided to me by the group: The surtax would impact around 345,000 taxpayers, roughly 0.2 percent of taxpayers, or one in 500 of them. Those people would pay on average an additional 2.1 percent of their overall income, or just over 1/50th of that overall income, in taxes.

In a majority of states, only one-tenth of one percent, or one in 1,000 taxpayers, would pay this surtax.

And how many people would benefit from the payroll tax cut? According to the group, around 113 million tax filing units — either single workers or families that include more than one worker — would see their payroll tax cut extended. That’s a lot of people — well over 113 million workers, in fact.

Here’s how this works. When Obama first proposed his American Jobs Act, to be paid for by a millionaire surtax, Citizens for Tax Justice produced an analysis determining that overall, 0.2 percent of taxpayers would be impacted by the surtax.

But that analysis looked at the entire American Jobs Act, which would have been paid for by a larger surtax (5.6 percent). I asked CTJ to update the numbers to reflect the new proposal, on just the payroll tax cut extension, which would be paid for by a smaller surtax of 3.25 percent.

Here’s where it gets tricky. Because that surtax only hits income over $1 million, the percentage of overall income it would amount to is actually less than 3.25 percent. That’s what I asked CTJ to calculate. And the bolded numbers above are the group’s answer.

We're left with a clear choice in which either one group (1/500th of taxpayers, all of whom are wealthy) or the other (more than 113 million workers) ends up paying more than they do now. The surtax would impact 1/500th of Americans, and they would pay on average 1/50th of their incomes in additional taxes. It is a question of fairness.

UPDATE: A version of this analysis in table form, which also brings you state by state numbers, is now up online. And an explanation of CTJ’s methodology is right here.

Septegenarian Ninja Turtle Mitch McConnell continues to insist that the GOP opposition to funding the payroll tax cut extension is about protecting small businesses. But Suzy Khimm at Ezra Klein's Wonkbook does a nice job debunking this GOP talking point. It turns out the tax would only hit one percent of businesses the Treasury Department categorizes that way.

As Joan McCarter at Daily Kos notes, the so-called “job creators” currently being protected from higher taxes aren’t creating jobs.

The failure to pass this "payroll tax holiday" economic stimulus will have a negative impact on the economy. In other words, Tea-Publicans would rather reverse the economic recovery than agree to a small surtax on the top 0.2 percent of income earners. Financial analyst: Consequences of failure to extend payroll tax cut would be dire - The Plum Line:

Michael Pond, the co-head of interest rate strategy at Barclays Plc, went on Bloomberg TV yesterday and made a striking claim: If Congress doesn’t extend the payroll tax cut, it could lead Barclay’s to drop its growth forecast by 1.5 % for the first quarter of next year.

* * *

Here’s what Pond said:

POND: Well, one of the things that we’re watching is the payroll tax extension and the signals that we’re getting from Washington as to whether we get that extension. Because if we don’t, our growth forecast frankly will probably be dropped down from about 2.5 percent in Q1 down to around 1 percent. It’s that big.

QUESTIONER: Whoa. Say that again. That big a number?

POND: It could have that big of an impact if we don’t get the payroll tax extension. The unemployment benefit extension is also important, but it’s the payroll tax extension that’s worth around $250 billion to the economy.

The two parties remain at a standoff over whether to pass the extension, which is set for a Senate vote this week.

Colin Powell: Occupy 'is as American as apple pie'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war and we're winning." - Warren Buffett

Pseudo-intellectual and preeminent housing historian Newt Gingrich called upon President Obama "to repudiate the concept of the ninety-nine and the one. It is un-American, it is divisive, and it is historically false..."

I really hope that the students who have taken classes from "Professor Newt" over the years were auditing his class and did not receive class credit for the revisionist history nonsense this fool spouts like a Pez dispenser. And don't even get me started on this economics ignoramous -- the man is clueless.

Greg Sargent writes Compare and contrast - The Plum Line:

And here’s Colin Powell, commenting on Occupy Wall Street:

Demonstrating like this is as American as apple pie. We have been marching up and down and demonststrating throughout our history...One of the things that is of concern to all of us is that there’s increasing gap between those who are doing very, very well, and I’m doing well, and those who are not doing as well. And those who are not doing as well are not seeing their lives improving. And so there’s frustration. There’s an angriness there.

This is something that I think our Wall Street friends, our business friends, need to think about. And this is something that our political leaders need to think about. It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstraters. We need our political system to start reflecting this anger back into, how do we fix it.

Of course, everyone knows Powell isn’t a real Republican, while Gingrich is one of the GOP’s great statesmen and leading intellectual demigods. [That's sarcasm folks -- laugh out loud!]

What’s more, Gingrich is involved in a primary dogfight with Mitt Romney, and given Romney’s low millionaire tax rates and venture capitalist past, Gingrich has a lot of work to do if he’s going to outdo Romney as the candidate of the one percent.

One easy way to do this is to attack anyone who dares even call attention to the problem of inequality. As Steve Benen notes, Gingrich doesn’t even want inequality to be the subject of our national conversation.

Too bad Newt. The economic trainwreck that conservative economic policies have inflicted on this country for the past 30 years have come home to roost. A true populist movement is taking shape that may eventually succeed in changing the economic order.

Robert Reich: 'We Need to Occupy Our Democracy'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From The Nation:

“The First Amendment is being stood on its head,” says Robert Reich, in a recent video produced by MoveOn.org. Critics of the Occupy Movement may view its nonviolent protests as rowdy and inconvenient, he argues, but the real public nuisance is the big money that has engulfed our democracy—and mass demonstrations are the only effective way for “real people” to be heard.

This video is the third in this new series. Click here to watch the first episode and here to watch the second, and check back at TheNation.com each week for new episodes.

—Teresa Cotsirilos

Selling Ammo

by David Safier

If you want your "Burning Hot Deals" on ammunition to catch fire, throw the fear of God Obama into the pitch.

Here's the top portion of an ad from USAAmmo.com.

Some accompanying text:

USAAmmo.com believes tyranny is knocking down the doors of American cities daily. The recent Occupy Wall Street protests and liberal attempts at gun control are eerily reminiscent of the rise of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

See that guy to Obama's left? Idi Amin? Look again. It's Forest Whitaker playing Idi Amin.

The whole thing is so preposterous, it's almost funny. So why am I not laughing?

The Red Queen will not call a Special Session ... for now

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Red Queen, Governor Jan Brewer, has issued a statement that she will not call a Special Session before the November 30 deadline for a referendum election on Prop. 106 at the time of the GOP Presidential Preference Primary on February 28, 2012. Ignore her self-righteous "I was right and the Court was wrong" bullshit, with the exception of her veiled threat against the Arizona Supreme Court.

Statement from Governor Jan Brewer

Redistricting in Arizona

“Perhaps the most difficult part of being a leader is telling people what they don’t want to hear. This is one of those moments. I share the sentiments of Arizona voters concerned about the conduct of the Independent Redistricting Commission, especially its Chairwoman. Likewise, I am deeply concerned that this year’s redistricting process has not been conducted openly and in full accordance with the Arizona Constitution, and that the resulting maps may unfairly diminish the political influence of individual communities and the state as a whole.

“It was with those concerns in mind that I removed the Chairwoman from her post with the IRC. I stand by that action, and believe the Arizona Supreme Court grossly erred in returning the Chairwoman to the Commission. There may be another time to deal with the Court, but it’s important at a time like this that we keep our eyes on the bigger picture.

“Arizona voters created the Independent Redistricting Commission with their approval in 2000 of Proposition 106. I’ve seen no evidence to date that indicates voters are ready or willing to throw out the Commission structure. Moreover, the Legislature has yet to produce a consensus set of redistricting reforms to propose to voters.

“I am aware of the time urgency. I know that some legislators, especially those of my political family, are anxious for me to call a Special Session so that they may pursue a ballot proposal to repeal or reform Prop 106. But we cannot act in haste – or in anger – when it comes to something as critical as the way in which Arizona draws its congressional and legislative districts. Our action must be reasoned and rational, and there must be a defined path to victory with voters. I will not call a Special Session on this topic unless and until I believe those bars have been met.”

###

What exactly does the Red Queen mean by "There may be another time to deal with the Court"? There are some members of our lawless Tea-Publican legislature who have suggested impeaching the Arizona Supreme Court for its decision. This is a gross abuse of power.

Others want to refer Arizona's constitutional provision (by citizens initiative) for judicial merit selection to the ballot for repeal, and returning to partisan election of judges. Tea-Publicans could then vote their ideological polemicists onto the bench, capturing the third branch of government with judges who will rubber-stamp any action of our lawless Tea-Publican legislature and Queen. This is Tea-Publican tyranny!

As I posted previously, the Tea-Publican assault on the AIRC is now morphing into an assault on the independence of the judiciary.

Why doesn't the Red Queen just drop all the pretense and declare a Tea-Publican coup d'état? Why bother with maintaining the trappings of a democracy when it is clear to everyone that Tea-Publicans do not believe in democracy, or our constitutional form of government, or the rule of law?

Mitt v. Mitt

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

The shameless shape-shifter Willard "Mittens" Romney takes it in the shorts in this new video from the DNC on his history of flip-flops:

The DNC put the video together and is now running a 30-second ad in Ohio encouraging people to go to MittvMitt.com to see "the story of two men trapped in one body." Love it!

I would argue that this shameless shape-shifter changes his positions in response to whatever he perceives his audience responds to, sometimes flip-flopping his position during the same answer to a question. Mittens is like a super chameleon (below).

Great ... we have a Newt, a chameleon, and a horny toad (Herman Cain). The Tea-Publican voter prefers the "lizard brain" (the amygdala) to the more evolved mammalian brain.

Lori Klein: a state treasure

by David Safier

I know Thanksgiving is over, but we in Arizona have so much to be thankful for. Take State Senator Lori Klein. Please.

Klein is Herman Cain's state chair, so naturally, she has an opinion about the sexual allegations facing him. According to CBS News:

Lori Klein, an Arizona state Senator and Cain's Arizona state chairman, told CBS News she stands by Cain.

She says she has known him for 12 years and he's "never been anything but a gentlemen - and I am not an unattractive woman."

Klein suggested that if Cain is innocent he should sue White for libel and went on to attack the media for digging up the allegations. She also said that in politics, "we want a virgin to do a hooker's job."

Wasn't it Freud who said, sometimes a gun is just a gun?

(For those who don't recall Klein's gun escapades in the Senate back in July, here's a post to refresh your memory.)

Foreclosuregate Update: Judge says 'no' to SEC no fault settlement agreement for Citigroup

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For today at least, my faith in justice has temporarily been restored. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan has said "no" the the Securities and Exchange Commission's "no fault" settlement agreement with Citigroup. We can only hope that "somebody's going to emergency, somebody's going to jail." Judge Blocks S.E.C. Settlement With Citigroup - NYTimes.com:

Taking a broad swipe at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of allowing companies to settle cases without admitting that they had done anything wrong, a federal judge on Monday rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the agency.

[Judge Rakoff] said that he could not determine whether the agency’s settlement with Citigroup was “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest,” as required by law, because the agency had claimed, but had not proved, that Citigroup committed fraud.

As it has in recent cases involving Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS and others, the agency proposed to settle the case by levying a fine on Citigroup and allowing it to neither admit nor deny the agency’s findings. Such settlements require approval by a federal judge.

While other judges are not obligated to follow Judge Rakoff’s opinion, the 15-page ruling could severely undermine the agency’s enforcement efforts if it eventually blocks the agency from settling cases in which the defendant does not admit the charges.

* * *

The [SEC] in particular, Judge Rakoff argued, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.” But it is difficult to tell what the agency is getting from this settlement “other than a quick headline.” Even a $285 million settlement, he said, “is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup,” and often viewed by Wall Street firms “as a cost of doing business.”

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Citigroup stuffed a $1 billion mortgage fund that it sold to investors in 2007 with securities that it believed would fail so that it could bet against its customers and profit when values declined. The fraud, the agency said, was in Citigroup’s falsely telling investors that an independent party was choosing the portfolio’s investments. Citigroup made $160 million from the deal and investors lost $700 million.

Judge Rakoff said the agency's settlement policy — “hallowed by history, but not by reason”— creates substantial potential for abuse because “it asks the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.” That undermines the constitutional separation of powers, he said, by asking the judiciary to rubber-stamp the executive branch’s interpretation of the law.

The agency said that it disagreed with the judge’s ruling but did not say whether it would appeal, or try to refashion the settlement or prepare to begin a trial, as the judge directed, on July 16.

* * *

In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future.

Citigroup and other repeat offenders can agree to those terms, the judge said, because they know that the commission has not monitored compliance, failing to bring contempt charges for repeat violations in at least 10 years.

* * *

A recent analysis by The New York Times of the agency’s fraud settlements with Wall Street firms found 51 instances, involving 19 companies, in which the agency claimed that a company had broken fraud laws that they previously had agreed never to breach. Securities law experts said that the ruling presents the agency with a tough dilemma. In future cases, it will have to consider the risk that another judge may be reluctant to approve a settlement given the Rakoff ruling.

“This is clearly a case of great significance,” said Harvey Pitt, a former chairman of the agency who is now chief executive at Kalorama Partners in Washington. “It’s also a case for which there is no direct precedent. Courts have been approving settlements by government agencies without any admissions of wrongdoing for years.”

Judge Rakoff has been a frequent critic of the agency’s settlements. In 2009, he rejected a proposed $33 million settlement with Bank of America for a case in which the agency said the bank had misled shareholders over its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. He eventually approved a $150 million settlement after the agency presented further evidence of the bank’s wrongdoing.

The judge also noted the difference between the agency’s settlement with Citigroup and its settlement last year with Goldman Sachs in a similar mortgage-derivatives case. Goldman was required to say that its marketing materials for the product “contained incomplete information.”

In the Citigroup case, no such facts were agreed on. “An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous,” Judge Rakoff wrote. “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.”

Judge Dredd Jed Rakoff is my kind of judge! The truth matters. Accountability matters. Justice matters. Allowing the banksters of Wall Street to pay just a small fine as the cost of doing business for what amounts to a criminal enterprise of fraud -- bring a RICO count against these banks for gods sake! -- is unacceptable. Judge Rakoff is saying that Court's should no longer rubber-stamp this corrupt practice.

The SEC has been a captive agency for years, permitting no fault settlement agreements for pennies on the dollar and allowing these banksters to keep their jobs and to go on committing fraud without any real consequences or accountability. No one ever goes to jail. This has to stop. "Somebody's going to emergency, somebody's going to jail."

Join "Las Adelitas" and "Save Ethic Studies" December 10, Mercado San Agustin

by David Safier

Las Adelitas is hosting a fundraiser for "Save Ethnic Studies." It's Saturday, December 10, 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm, Mercado San Agustin (100 S. Avenida del Convento). Tickets, are $20, $10 for students.

Join us for traditional food, drinks, and music of the holidays... pinatas, fun for the kids, and good company as we support a great cause! Opata Elder and Chicano Activist Gustavo Gutierrez will be joining us for a blessing.

In a district that is 60% Latino, Mexican American Studies in TUSD has made huge strides to nearly close the achievement gap for Latino students in the district. This incredible program is in jeopardy and we need to make sure we support the educators of Save Ethnic Studies!

Time is running out on the Tea-Publican tyranny

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The guardians of the GOP status quo in the corporate media are out with their "It's the end of the world if the legislature doesn't stop the AIRC!" reporting today.

First, from the publication by lobbyists and for lobbyists, the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) Special session prospects look bleak for Prop. 106 repeal:

With the deadline for getting a measure on the Feb. 28 ballot looming, the prospects for a special session to refer Proposition 106 back to the ballot seemed bleak.

Gov. Jan Brewer said today that she’s open to the possibility of a special election on a ballot referral for the 2000 initiative that created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. But the special session must be completed by Wednesday if the election is to be held on the day of the Republican presidential preference election, and Brewer said she has yet to speak with legislative leadership since the Arizona Supreme Court last week reaffirmed its decision to reinstate the redistricting panel’s chairwoman after Brewer and GOP lawmakers removed her earlier this month.

* * *

Calls for a special session on the proposed ballot referral have grown louder since the Arizona Supreme Court reversed the Senate’s Nov. 1 ouster of IRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis. On Nov. 23, the court elaborated on its ruling, saying Brewer and the Senate did not have sufficient grounds to remove Mathis, whom Republicans accused of violating open meeting law, ignoring constitutional criteria for redistricting and colluding with the IRC’s two Democratic members.

* * *

Some lawmakers said they would still be willing to remove Mathis again, despite the court’s ruling that the accusations against her didn’t rise to the level of “gross misconduct” or “neglect of duty,” as required by the Arizona Constitution. Others said the Legislature should focus on reforming Prop. 106 instead of repealing it.

* * *

Brewer said she and the Legislature frequently operate under time constraints, and believes there is still enough time for the Legislature to refer Prop. 106 to the ballot for Feb. 28. She said it would cost the state less money to hold the special election on that date because it will coincide with the previously scheduled presidential primary.

To be fair, the Arizona Capitol Times is showing a little more objectivity in its reporting than it did earlier in its coverage of the AIRC, including this reality-check report today. Redistricting special election could have preclearance problems:

Even if Republican lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer can reach an agreement on a Feb. 28 special election on redistricting, the U.S. Department of Justice may still keep the proposed repeal of the Independent Redistricting Commission off the ballot.

Republican lawmakers want to refer Prop. 106, the 2000 ballot measure that created the IRC, back to the ballot in the hopes that voters will repeal it. But Arizona is one of a handful of states that is required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to get DOJ approval – known as preclearance – for all election and voting changes, including the dates of special elections.

Because minority voters, such as Latinos and Native Americans, predominantly vote Democratic, the feds might determine that a special election on the date of the Republican-only presidential preference election would be racially discriminatory, said Gerald Hebert, a former DOJ civil rights attorney who now works as an election consultant.

“DOJ would focus on the minority aspect of that. But if there’s a correlation between minorities voting Democratic, which I assume there is, then DOJ would look pretty closely at that,” he said.

The Department of Justice has rejected special elections in the past when it felt the date would suppress minority turnout.

* * *

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said he already contacted DOJ about his concerns that a Feb. 28 special election would suppress minority turnout. Gallardo said he would file an objection with the feds immediately if the Legislature approves the election date, which must be done by Wednesday.

“I would definitely have a letter out to the Department of Justice the very next morning,” he said. “And I would not be the only one.”

The prize for the least objective news reporting on the AIRC once again goes to Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. Howard should just drop all pretense and go to work for the Arizona Republican Party. This is truly pathetic. Redistricting commission moves toward final maps as Brewer, GOP run out of time - East Valley Tribune:

The state's Independent Redistricting Commission begins its final push Tuesday to adopt final political maps as Gov. Jan Brewer and Republican legislators are running out of time to find some way to undo the panel's work.

* * *

[T]his week's meetings are also occurring in the wake of the effort by Gov. Jan Brewer to fire chairwoman Colleen Mathis, a move that, while ratified by the state Senate on a party-line vote, was overturned just last week by the Arizona Supreme Court.

That has left the governor and other Republicans trying to find other ways to short-circuit the commission's work. But as of Monday afternoon, Brewer, having been rebuffed by the high court, was instead waiting for some signs from Republican legislative leaders of what they want to try next.

But Senate President-elect Steve Pierce said it's up to the governor to decide.

"We've given them ideas," he said. "We're waiting on them; they're not waiting on us."

But time is running out.

Because the commission was created by voters in 2000, any move to repeal it or even change how it operates would require ratification at the polls.

There already is a statewide presidential preference primary set for Feb. 28, though only the Republicans have a contest. But there is a Wednesday deadline to expand that event to something for all voters.

One proposal would ask voters to repeal the commission. That would return the task of drawing the political lines to the lawmakers themselves.

Another would instead ask voters to revamp the commission, adding more politically independent members, perhaps with a requirement for some rural representation that does not exist now.

Senate Majority Whip Frank Antenori said he has done a head count in his chamber and there are sufficient votes for either outright repeal or some modification. The Tucson Republican said the blame for the lack of action lies elsewhere.

And House Speaker Andy Tobin says he has told the governor's staffers that his chamber is "ready to go" and can line up the votes for either outright repeal or reform.

* * *

[Senate President] Pierce was frustrated with what he sees as lack of action by the governor.

"We need to get with the governor and hash it out," he said. "We've got our members who want to do this."

He said it is up to Brewer whether to pursue reform or repeal.

At this point, though, Pierce said he doubts that latter plan is saleable.

"I don't think voters are going to want to give it back to us," he said. And some polling done by Republicans appears to back that up.

Brewer, however, said she's not convinced.

"The bottom line is that we can believe what the polls say, or we can believe that the public maybe is not completely aware of what has taken place and how the Constitution is written," she said.

* * *

Pierce also likes the idea of expanding the commission from its current five members - two Republicans, two Democrats and an independent - to ensure that the independent, as the swing vote, does not have too much power.

"When it's only five people, it's easy to corrupt," he said.

That still leaves the question of taking any question to voters on Feb. 28. Brewer said she supports that, since there already is that GOP primary set for that day.

"It's probably a lot less expensive to do it on the presidential primary election," she said, saying the state already is going to spend $5 million on that vote. And Brewer said she sees nothing improper about scheduling a vote on either repeal or reform of the commission as part of an election where the only other issue to bring voters out is a primary where Democrats and independents have no reason to show up.

Well of course she doesn't. That's what one would expect a tyrant Queen to say.

If our lawless Tea-Publican legislature and the Red Queen conspire for a last-minute special session to refer Prop. 106 to the ballot on February 28 with the GOP Presidential Preference Primary in an attempt to rig the vote in their favor, this will guarantee that there will be a recall of Jan Brewer next year, and there will be enough valid signatures to send her recall to the ballot. This Tea-Publican authoritarian tyranny has to stop. Enough is enough!

Reminder: AIRC Public Hearings Resume Today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) has posted notice of three public hearings this week:

Location:

Fiesta Resort - Fiesta Ballroom
2100 S. Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282

Date & Time:

Tuesday, November 29 at 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, November 30 at 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 1at 1:00 p.m.

The AIRC will be reviewing public input received during the second round of public hearings to make adjustments to the "draft'" maps Agenda Info as the AIRC moves forward to completion of "final" maps to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice in December.

(Assuming there is no further unconstitutional and unlawful interference from the Red Queen and our lawless Tea-Publican legislature.)

The Tea-Publican tyrants will no doubt be out in force to threaten and intimidate the AIRC. Doonesbury on the GOP stealing elections (11/13/2011).

Kyl: I'm a reasonable guy. Milbank: No you're not.

by David Safier

The Star created a wonderful pairing on its op ed page: Jon Kyl maintaining he bent over backwards to be fair and reasonable during the Supercommittee debacle, and Dana Milbank showing what an inflexible ideologue Kyl is.

Milbank wins the argument, hands down. Some excerpts:

In the days following Hurricane Katrina, the nation was reeling over the death and destruction in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. But Kyl, now the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, saw opportunity: According to a voice-mail recording left at the time by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Kyl and Sessions were hoping to find a business owner killed in the storm so they could use that in their campaign to repeal the estate tax.

It was vintage Kyl: cold and ruthless.

[snip]

It exaggerates little to say that Kyl thwarted [the Supercommittee] agreement almost singlehandedly. While some Republicans on the panel - notably Reps. Dave Camp and Fred Upton - were, with House Speaker John Boehner's blessing, prepared to strike a deal, Kyl rallied resistance with his usual table-pounding tirades.

[snip]

Norquist, who worked to defeat a compromise, brags about his control over Kyl. When Kyl made remarks in May that appeared to leave open the possibility of tax increases, Norquist called Kyl and adopted "the tone of a teacher scolding a second-grader as he recalled the conversation," Politico reported. Norquist boasted to the publication that, after he upbraided Kyl, the senator "went down on the floor and he gave a colloquy about how we're against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!"

[snip]

"Walking napalm" is how one Democratic aide involved in the supercommittee described Kyl this week. And if the senator makes some mistakes as he burns down the village - well, that's just a cost of doing business. Earlier this year, when Kyl was leading an effort to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, he claimed on the Senate floor that abortion is "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." The actual number is 3 percent. An aide to Kyl explained: "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement."

As Kyl leaves the Senate, he will be remembered as a lawmaker who intended to be not factual but destructive.

Occupy ALEC Events

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Here are some Occupy ALEC events readers may be interested in attending.

From AZ resists ALEC blog:

ARIZONA IS CALLING FOR A DIVERSITY OF TACTICS TO SHUT DOWN THE UPCOMING ALEC CONFERENCE IN SCOTTSDALE, AZ ON NOVEMBER 30TH. 

READ THE CALL-OUT!

Summary of Activities:

• 11/29 Welcoming, banner making, Health & Safety training, Spokescouncil meeting, “Un-occupy Our Lands! Indigenous Peoples Gathering in Resistance to Corporate & State Terrorism”
• 11/30 Mass Protest: Noise protest, Business Suit bloc, and other diversity of tactics
• 12/1 Spokescouncil meeting, decompression, March at Freeport McMoran, Decentralized Actions, Speaking Event w/Publisher of ALECexposed.org, Warehouse party
• 12/2 Convergence and dinner, March on First Friday
• 12/3 Looking Forward: Resistance Beyond ALEC counter-conference

A tentative detailed schedule has been updated 11/26.

Contact us! @ projectbaldwin@gmail.com or “Katy Perry” at (623) 498-1929

From the National Prison Industry Divestment Campaign Resist #ALEC this November in Scottsdale, AZ! Nov 29- Dec 2 #AltoArizona « National Prison Industry Divestment Campaign:

Resist ALEC this November in Scottsdale, AZ! Nov 29- Dec 2

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a massive non-profit body that brings corporations and legislators together to draft “model” legislation.  For example, AZ Senator Russell Pearce and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation’s largest private prison firm, have been members for years.  ALEC finalized the model legislation which became, almost word for word, Arizona’s SB1070, aka “Support Our Law Enforcement.”  It’s the latest in the historical pattern of colonization, slave codes, convict leasing, and the drug war, that CREATES crimes and therefore criminals, for profit.

With British Petroleum (BP) and the Koch brothers as some of their funders, ALEC has pushed for Three Strikes and Mandatory Minimum sentencing, as well as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.  More than 200 of ALEC’s model bills became actual laws throughout the country over the past year.

SCHEDULE

Tuesday, November 29th
banner making (morning)
Health & Safety at Actions training by PUHC at Rusty Spoke (afternoon)
spokescouncil meeting at Rusty Spoke (afternoon)*
indigenous gathering (evening)

Wednesday, November 30th – day of action
convergence near site (morning)
meal (afternoon)
regroup/needs assessment (evening)

Thursday, December 1st
convergence and food in Phoenix (afternoon)
decentralized actions at various sites- help plan! (afternoon)
GOP debate, location TBA (6:00pm)
warehouse party in Phoenix (night)

Friday, December 2nd
return to ALEC/multiple actions to plug into (afternoon)
convergence and food in Phoenix (evening)
First Friday march (night)

Saturday, December 3rd
conference in downtown Phoenix (afternoon/evening)”

Project Baldwin projectbaldwin@riseup.net

And from the Arizona AFL-CIO: 

VOICES OF ARIZONA:

Americans Harmed by ALEC "Model Bills" Speak Out Against Undue Corporate Influence in the Democratic Process 

Concerned citizens hold community forum and press conference to expose the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s stronghold on the Arizona Legislature

WHAT: Community Forum and Press Conference to expose ALEC’s influence in pushing legislation in Arizona and across the country aimed at enriching specific industries by privatizing schools and prisons, suppressing the vote, blocking implementation of healthcare reform, rolling back environmental regulations and attacking workers’ rights.

WHEN: Community Forum: Tuesday, November 29, 6:00pm – 9:00pm CST, South Mountain Community College (7050 S. 24th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85042)

Press Conference: Wednesday, November 30, 11:00am CST, Arizona State Capitol Lawn (1700 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ)

DETAILS: 

On Tuesday, November 29, state and national advocacy organizations will hold a forum and panel discussion to engage Arizona’s progressive community and push back on the far-reaching influence that ALEC has on Arizona’s political landscape and its citizens’ daily lives. A panel discussion will focus on ALEC’s undue political influence at the national and state level, with a focus on Arizona. Panelists include: 

• Doug Clopp, Common Cause (moderator)
• Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy
• Marge Baker, People For the American Way Foundation
• Erika Andiola, Promise Arizona
• Hon. John Loredo, Consultant and former State Representative
• Sheri Van Horsen, President, AFSCME Local 3111
• Rebekah Friend, Executive Director, AZ AFL-CIO
• Joe Thomas, Arizona Education Association

On Wednesday, November 30, community leaders will speak out at a press conference at the Arizona State House about the real human toll of ALEC’s influence in Arizona. The speakers will identify specific ALEC legislation that has directly impacted their families and communities. Hundreds of activists have been invited to the event, and individual Arizonans to groups such as Occupy Phoenix are mobilizing in support.  Speakers include:

• Hon. John Loredo, Consultant and former State Representative (Master of Ceremonies)
• Erika Andiola, Promise Arizona
• Caroline Isaacs, American Friends Service Committee
• Erin Kirchoff, Kyrene School District Teacher
• Rebekah Friend, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, Arizona AFL-CIO
• Cyndi Chacon, member of the Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 30
• Frank Piccioli, President, AFCSME Local 2960
• Todd Landfried, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform

LIVE STREAM: The press conference will be live-streamed for remote viewers.

People For the American Way Foundation and Common Cause will release a joint report, “ALEC in Arizona: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests in the Halls of Arizona’s Legislature,” which examines the extensive influence wielded by corporations, with the assistance of ALEC, in shaping Arizona’s laws through a side-by-side comparison of ALEC model legislation and actual bills submitted by ALEC-associated politicians.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a vehicle through which global corporations and state politicians collaborate and vote behind closed doors to design legislation that benefits the huge corporations funding ALEC. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life, and carry serious consequences for the American people by disenfranchising voters, undermining environmental protections, scapegoating immigrants to profit from the private prison industry and defunding public education. Learn more here.

Changing school organization to improve achievement?

by David Safier

The National Education Policy Center is notoriously skeptical of most studies it reviews, which is why a positive review from these folks makes me give this study some credence. The study maintains you can improve student achievement by making two organizational changes in schools: Starting middle and high schools later in the morning and creating K-8 schools instead of separate elementary and middle schools. A third variable, increasing teacher specialization by grade and subject, yielded a smaller but significant change in achievement.

I don't want to make too much of this. Educators mull these kinds of changes all the time. But I know how sleepy high schoolers are at 7:30am, and I have read and observed that teens' sleep patterns tend toward late nights and late mornings. When my high school went to a later opening time, everyone seemed happier. I have no idea if there was a rise in achievement, but my first period classes were significantly more alert. And I know lots of districts have gone to the K-8 format.

The interesting thing is, the "school reform" movement is pushing for more radical change -- charter schools, vouchers, dropping tenure, breaking unions -- none of which has any solid statistical evidence to indicate they improve achievement. Most studies suggest those "reforms" are an educational wash. On the other hand, this study suggests changing the starting time of schools and consolidating elementary and middle schools, neither of which creates major shake-ups in the system, have measurable positive effects.

From the standpoint of the "school reform movement," the problem with these kinds of organizational changes is, they don't privatize education or bust unions, which means they have little appeal to the Jeb Bush/Goldwater Institute/Walton Foundation (Walmart)/Hedge Fund types.

Who wudda guessed?

by David Safier

What are the odds that Miley Cyrus, tween idol, singer, TV star, would sing a song in praise and support of the Occupy movement?

Hint: Put your money on Miley. She's got a song and video, Liberty Walk. Some lyrics:

It's a liberty walk,
say goodbye to the
People who tied you up
It's a liberty walk
Feeling your heart again, breathing new oxygen
It's a liberty walk, walk free yourself
Slam the door
Not a prisoner anymore
Liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty,
It's a liberty walk.

 

Rick Perry, meet Joe Arpaio

 by David Safier

You may have read Joe Arpaio is going to New Hampshire to endorse Rick Perry. The AZ Democratic Party has certainly heard about the endorsement, and it's using the event to introduce Joe to Rick.

The Texas governor has somehow been hoodwinked by Arpaio into believing the sheriff's endorsement comes with anything but baggage. So for the benefit of Perry's campaign -- which seems to need the help -- we've put together a few of Joe's greatest hits below, and this is just the easy to find stuff.

Included are 14 links from major papers, magazines and television detailing Arpaio's many questionable activities, from

• Abuses of Power and Racial Discrimination; to 
• Sending Hundreds Of Officers Into Heavily Latino Neighborhoods To Ask Anyone Who Commits Violations As Minor As Jaywalking About Their Immigration Status; to 
• Misusing At Least $50 Million From A Fund For Jail Operations To Pay For Functions Not Allowed Under Jail-Fund Rules; to
• Routinely Using County-Issued Credit Cards To Charge Expensive Meals And Stays At Luxury Hotels  to
• Directing His “Cold Case Posse” To Look Into President Obama’s Birth Certificate; to . . .

You get the picture. Go to the Media Release for all the dirty details.

Two excellent articles on guns going to Mexico from the U.S.

by David Safier

Sunday saw two excellent investigative articles about guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico, one in the Star and one in the Republic.

The Star's Tim Steller does his usual thorough job in his article investigating the contradictory claims, by NRA-connected gun enthusiasts and people trying to increase gun selling regulations, about the number of guns from U.S. gun stores and gun shows making their way into Mexico illegally.

Naturally, people who scream "Second Amendment!" and want few if any regulations on the sale and possession of firearms maintain guns sold legally in the U.S. aren't a major contributor to the arsenals of Mexican drug cartels. People demanding more regulations on who can purchase guns legally and how many they can purchase over a given length of time maintain as many as 90% of the guns floating around Mexico came from the U.S. Steller doesn't try to come up with a definitive answer. He shows how both sides reach their conclusions. But he does conclude, there is a problem:

[Scott Stewart, a vice president at Stratfor Global Intelligence] said whatever the proportion of firearms in Mexico coming from the United States, the problem is undeniable.

"Absolutely, it is a problem and it does need to be addressed," he said, adding: "The sad reality is even if we were to close the border, they would still get weapons. It's just going to increase their cost."

The Republic's Dennis Wagner has the most complete and complex -- in a good way --  discussion of the entire Fast and Furious gun operation, from before it began to how it made it in the media to the current controversy. The ATF definitely doesn't look good in the operation -- which it shouldn't -- but Wagner doesn't demonize all the characters involved and concludes the operation was mainly Arizona based without much involvement from D.C.

I've read lots of coverage of these two topics, and Steller and Wagner have done as good a job (or better) as I have seen anywhere.

UPDATE: The coverage just got more interesting. On his blog, Tim Steller added information to the already information-rich Republic article about Fast and Furious. Steller gives some background on one of the two "Second Amendment!" bloggers who broke the story: Mike Vanderboegh.

While Vanderboegh has done a good job exposing Fast and Furious in the last year, he remains what he was before: A man so convinced that the federal government has turned totalitarian that he has declared himself willing, even occasionally seeming eager, to engage in war against it. As with many gun-rights activists, he foresees the moment of truth as when the feds come to take Americans' guns — that's when the shooting war would begin.

The story gets better as it continues from there.

ALEC in Arizona

by David Safier

ALEC is coming to Phoenix Wednesday, and in honor of the event, People for the American Way and Common Cause put together a very long study, ALEC in Arizona: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests in the Halls of Arizona’s Legislature. From the Media Release introducing the study:

“Working side-by-side with elected officials, ALEC uses its resources to shepherd legislation from the corporate boardroom to the governor’s desk,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President at People For the American Way Foundation.  There’s no way ordinary citizens can match the level of access and influence that ALEC provides to these corporations, so Arizonians are subjected to laws that serve the interests of the rich and powerful instead of everyday people. The deck is stacked against ordinary Americans and there’s a tremendous amount of work to do to level the playing field.”

“This side-by-side analysis of bills is a stunning look at the vast amount of influence that corporations are having in Arizona public policy,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “These companies are putting their muscle behind legislation in Phoenix and investing millions of dollars to elect and re-elect lawmakers who support it. It’s no wonder Arizonans feel like their voices aren’t being heard.”

Want to know which legislators are ALEC members? "Arizona has one of the highest concentrations of ALEC legislators of any state in the United States," You'll find the names of the 50 members in the study.

Want to know which Arizona-based corporations give money to ALEC and often sit on its boards? Here's the basic list:

• ATS (American Traffic Solutions)
• AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)
• Pinnacle West Capital Corporation
• SRP (Salt River Project). This one is especially problematic because one of the two entities making up SRP, The Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, is, according to the document, "a political subdivision of the state of Arizona."
• Taser International

You'll also find 20 Arizona bills which the study says are linked to ALEC. I honestly wish the study had done a better job on this portion. Many of the "links" are a bit of a stretch in my opinion, though there is no question AZ Republicans work with ALEC regularly on legislation. Linkages I created awhile back, using the research done by Lisa Hoffman, are more solid than most in the study. You can find them here.

More on activities in Phoenix during the ALEC summit in a later post. Here's an event Wednesday some might want to attend, especially readers in the Phoenix area:

The Arizona AFL-CIO along with many other organizations will be holding a joint press conference regarding ALEC on the lawn of the State Capitol on Wednesday, November 30 starting ay 11:00.

The latest Goo-Goos gone bad: The top two primary

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

I posted about this some time ago with my list of ill-conceived reforms. Goo-Goos Gone Bad:

No, not the Goo-Goo Dolls. "Goo-Goos" is a shorthand acronym for "good government" activists. These single-minded good government crusaders exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

On the left they tend to be utopian idealists: "can't we all just get along and live together in peace and harmony?" They play on the sunny side of the street.

On the right they invariably tend to be one of the "Three R's": regressive, repressive or retaliatory. It is all about maintaining their perceived economic or political advantage. They play on the dark side of the street.

The latest entry in Goo-Goos gone bad comes from the "left." It is an initiative called the Open Elections/Open Government Act which would institute a "top two primary" in Arizona. Media villagers tend to love this kind of thing, and several have already written favorable opinions. They are wrong, per usual.

A frequent justification cited is that "California recently adopted it," to which I would reply that all bad ideas for reforms begin in California (Prop. 13, Prop. 187, etc.) This is not a strong selling point for me.

Tucson Attorney Si Schorr and former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson recently had an opinion published in the Arizona Daily Star as co-chairs of the Open Elections/Open Government Act. Both men are smart enough to know better. Open Elections would improve representation, reduce hyperpartisanship (excerpt):

Can this process become a permanent part of the Arizona landscape? Yes, with the passage of the Open Elections/Open Government Act that we are working to put before Arizona voters in 2012.

The Open Elections/Open Government Act would do away with the current primary elections in Arizona in which only a limited number of voters participate and are only permitted to cast ballots for the partisan candidates from one party. In its place there would be a primary election open to all voters and all candidates. The top two candidates from that election - regardless of political party-would then face off in the November general election.

No longer would a primary election exist in which Democrats and Republicans choose nominees, while Independent voters are largely left out. All voters, regardless of their political party, would be free to cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice.

Since all candidates would compete against each other in the open primary seeking the support of Democrats, Republicans and independent voters, candidates would be forced to address issues of importance to all, not just those in their respective parties.

The result would be that every voter would be permitted to vote in every election. Voters would have real choices, with candidates who better represent all the people of Arizona rather than just the political parties and extreme views of narrow interests. More open-minded candidates guided by common sense, instead of extreme ideology from either side of the political spectrum, would run for office.

This citizen initiative will require approval by a majority of voters casting a ballot next November. To place the initiative on the ballot, the signatures of more than 250,000 Arizona voters will be required. We already have more than 70,000 signatures toward this goal.

The unintended consequence of the "top two primary" is that it actually reduces the number of candidate choices available to voters at the general election, when far more people are casting their ballots. How is this a good thing?

Minor parties with few resources and little organization and membership like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party would no longer appear on the November ballot because they will have been soundly defeated in the primary election. The right to cast a protest vote by voting for a minor party candidate is a right which ought to be preserved and protected.

This is also true for the two major political parties. With the recent nuclear war over redistricting in Arizona and the creation of "safe" districts by political party registration, the "top two primary" would disenfranchise voters in "safe" districts in the general election where the only choices will be either two Republicans or two Democrats. The right to cast a protest vote by voting for the candidate of my political party registration, even if that candidate cannot win due to lopsided voter registration for the other major political party in my district, is a right which ought to be preserved and protected.

Finally, a lot can happen between the primary election in August and the general eelction in November. In 2010 we had one candidate running for the Corporation Commission die before election day, and several sham Green Party candidates recruited by Republican Party operative were involved in a poliical scandal. In fact, political scandals and candidate gaffes frequently have been decisive in the November general election. Having multiple party candidates on the ballot gives voters a better choice than having to say "Oh well, I guess I have to vote for the other guy."

This is a bad idea which should not appear on the ballot, and should not be approved by voters if it does.

I would propose an alternative which I have been promoting for years with no success because incumbents will not approve it -- the "none of the above" option on the ballot. Instead of limiting voters' options like the 'top two primary" does, this actually increases voters' options by giving them the choice to say they do not like any of the candidates and to start over with a special election. Be honest, how often have you wished that you had this option on your ballot?

It is true that in states which have the "none of the above" option on the ballot, it has been exceedingly rare when this option has received the most votes, almost entirely at local level elections. It is primarily an opportunity for voters to cast a protest vote. And that is a right which ought to be encouraged. If "none of the above" finishes second to the eventual winner, this tends to chasten that candidate's behavior in office and makes him or her more responsive to their constituents. And isn't that what we want to encourage?

The online 'reality-show' of Americans Elect - Not a legitimate political party

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I told you about Arizona's newest political party Americans Elect back in July. It is NOT a legitimate political party. Let's learn more about Arizona's newest political party, Americans Elect:

I think Secretary of State Ken Bennett has to answer some questions. How is it that a 501(c)(4) which cannot engage in politics is a political party? How can a 501(c)(4) which cannot engage in politics place candidates on the ballot? How does a 501(c)(4) which is not required to disclose its contributors comply with Federal Election Commission disclosure rules and state of Arizona disclosure rules for campaign contributions in support of a candidate? And how does this not violate its 501(c)(4) tax status?

Irregular Times has posted a whole series of investigative reports on Americans Elect here. Americans Elect | Irregular Times.

Last week, Jonathan Bernstein posted Third-party goofiness - The Plum Line: 

The Post today has an update about the progress of Americans Elect, which depending on your point of view is either the organization dedicated to opening up the political system to break the two-party duopoly on offices, or the shadowy stalking horse for a third-party run that refuses to reveal its donors.

* * *

In other words, success is getting to be included in nationally televised debates, and treated seriously by the press. If you define success as actually winning, there’s very little chance of achieving that. And, no, there’s little evidence that these candidates have much effect on much of anything else, either[.]

* * *

Political scientists actually have fierce debates about exactly what political parties are, but if there’s a consensus on anything it’s probably that the job of selecting candidates to run for office is very close to the core of what political parties do. See for more Seth Masket’s excellent takedowns here and here. Not that there’s anything wrong, other than the likely futility of it, in forming a new party. But the really annoying thing to me at any rate is that the folks who do these things tend to believe that something about the political process is responsible for the failure of public policy to conform to their preferences. The truth is that we have bitter disagreements between the political parties because a lot of people have intense, honest, and perfectly legitimate disagreements over policy. Or, in other words, because that’s what happens in democracies. As James Madison observed long ago, the only way to get rid of squabbling, petty politicians is to eliminate freedom, and that’s a cure much worse than the disease.

Steve Benen posted at the Political Animal - Must we keep going through this charade?:

Sigh.

The restless political middle — emboldened by the recent inability of a special congressional committee to agree on a debt-reduction deal — is staking out a controversial plan to insert itself into the 2012 election.

A bipartisan group of political strategists and donors known as Americans Elect has raised $22 million and is likely to place a third presidential candidate on the ballot in every state next year. The goal is to provide an alternative to President Obama and the GOP nominee and break the tradition of a Democrat-vs.-Republican lineup.

The effort could represent a promising new chapter for political moderates, who see a wide-open middle in the political landscape as congressional gridlock and bitter partisan fights have driven down favorability ratings for both parties.

“Voters are saddened by the inability of people in Washington to deal with the issues that are important to them,” said the group’s chief executive, Kahlil Byrd, a Republican strategist who once worked for Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D). 

I don’t doubt that these people are well intentioned. Their hearts are in the right place; they want what’s best for the country; and I’m glad they’re taking an interest in the election.

But gimmicks are not going to solve meaningful challenges facing the country.

Americans Elect wants a split presidential ticket, requiring their nominee to pick a running mate from a different party. It’s not clear why. Parties have different agendas, which is why there are different parties. Why should a president and vice president have different views about government and policy? Because it would apparently make Americans Elect feel better.

How would Americans Elect go about putting together a platform? They don’t know. It’d apparently be “moderate,” which has come to mean “we agree with Democrats but don’t want to say so.”

If they were successful, how would Americans Elect overcome Republican radicalism? Or the filibuster rules? They don’t know this, either.

* * *

An online reality-show campaign may sound very nice in a boardroom, but it’s a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be put to far better use.

I am still waiting for someone to file a legal challenge to Secretary of State Ken Bennett certifying this 501(c)(4) as a political party. Perhaps this is something that the Democratic and Republican Parties can both agree on to work together. Ballot confusion is not permitted under Arizona law, and Ken Bennett is failing in his job as chief elections officer is he permits this.

UPDATE: E.J. Dionne writes today, Divided moderates will be conquered - The Washington Post:

The deficit that should most worry us is a deficit of reasonableness. The problems the United States confronts are large but not insoluble. Yet sensible solutions that are broadly popular can’t be enacted.

Why? Because an ideological bloc that sees every crisis as an opportunity to reduce the size of government holds enough power in Congress to stop us from doing what needs to be done.

Some of my middle-of-the-road columnist friends keep ascribing our difficulties to structural problems in our politics. A few call for a centrist third party. But the problem we face isn’t about structures or the party system. It’s about ideology — specifically a right-wing ideology that has temporarily taken over the Republican Party and needs to be defeated before we can have a reasonable debate between moderate conservatives and moderate progressives about our country’s future.

A centrist third party would divide the opposition to the right wing and ease its triumph. That’s the last thing authentic moderates should want.

* * *

We need moderation all right, but a moderate third party is the one way to guarantee we won’t get it. If moderates really want to move the conversation to the center, they should devote their energies to confronting those who are blocking the way. And at this moment, the obstruction is coming from a radicalized right.

The Fire Next Time: The Euro Financial Crisis - Endgame?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While all the media villagers are breathlessly reporting a good "Black Friday" holiday sales weekend in the U.S., most media outlets are entirely ignoring the elephant in the room, the Euro Financial Crisis, which is rapidly metastasizing.

European Union leaders will gather in Washington for a summit meeting with President Obama on Monday amid new warnings about the severity of Europe’s debt crisis. Obama hosts European leaders as debt crisis escalates - The Washington Post:

In reports issued Monday, Moody’s Investors Service said all of Europe’s sovereign ratings are being threatened by the “rapid escalation” of the crisis, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that the region faces the prospect of further massive economic disruption and said policymakers should be “prepared to face the worst.”

* * *

The United States, Europe and Japan face bleaker economic prospects that could put the world’s wealthiest economies on the verge of another recession if they do not take more aggressive measures to boost growth, the Paris-based OECD said in a major biannual report issued Monday.

The OECD, an international economic forum that includes the United States and 33 other leading economies, warned that the failure of U.S. lawmakers to agree to a plan that could stimulate growth and offset a looming set of budget cuts “could tip the economy into a recession that monetary policy could do little to counter.” But the organization stressed that the debt crisis in Europe remained the “key risk to the global economy,” calling for far more decisive action. In particular, the organization called for central banks across the developed world to ensure supplies of increasingly scarce credit and take other “effective action” to “calm market tensions.”

“We are concerned that policy-makers fail to see the urgency of taking decisive action to tackle the real and growing risks to the global economy,” OECD Chief Economist Pier Carlo Padoan told reporters in Paris. “We see U.S. growth recovering only slowly, the euro area entering into mild recession and Japan growing faster because of reconstruction, but this boost is temporary and will fade away.”

Moody’s, a top credit ratings agency, also warned Monday that in the absence of a short-term solution to Europe’s debt crisis, borrowing rates for indebted nations such as Italy would continue to rise to unsustainable levels, escalating the region’s woes.

Even in the best-case scenario, Moody’s said, widespread defaults in the region might be avoided, but only after deep economic shocks force European leaders to act more boldly. Even then, action may come only after conditions in the more troubled nations become so dire that they require massive bailouts to avoid defaults, the agency suggested.

* * *

Moody’s warned that a series of defaults would increase the likelihood of countries abandoning the euro. This, in turn, would negatively affect the credit ratings of all euro-zone countries and members of the European Union, it said.

European leaders will continue this week to slowly hammer out new structural measures to shore up the euro currency zone, but market confidence among investors already showed signs of crumbling late last week.

* * *

[I]nternational investors are holding back, said people familiar with the financial industry, because of uncertainty about the future of the euro zone and worry about how further downgrades of sovereign bonds by credit agencies might hurt banks.

Banks in Europe have also practically stopped lending to other banks, a key task of the financial system that central banks are now performing. And international financial officials fear a self-reinforcing crisis of confidence that could slow down economies — and damage financial institutions and governments alike[.]

* * *

“Right now we are very close to the edge,” said a senior European diplomat who requested anonymity to speak freely on the matter. “There needs to be some quick decisions, but I am not yet convinced that the Germans are really willing to change their stance.”

In the meantime, concern is focusing on Italy and Spain, the euro zone’s third- and fourth-largest economies, where borrowing costs are climbing toward levels that would be unsustainable over the long term.

Ezra Klein writes at his Wonkbook: Is Europe finally at the endgame? - The Washington Post: 

There are signs that we really could be at a tipping point for the European Union. The contagion has spread to Germany and France. The market seems increasingly uninterested in half measures. They're likely to keep pulling back from Eurozone debt as long as the Eurozone's future remains in doubt. And so European leaders and Eurozone observers are considering more radical, final solutions.

The Wall Street Journal reports that European leaders are negotiating "a potentially groundbreaking fiscal pact aimed at preventing the currency bloc from fracturing by tethering its members even closer together," but they have waited so long to move to further integration that some observers, like Simon Johnson and Peter Boone, believe that the time for further integration has passed. "Some nations will need to leave the euro zone. There is no painless solution."

The Eurozone is now trapped between the unthinkable and the unsellable. Dissolution was considered so unlikely that there aren't even provisions for leaving the Eurozone. But further integration was too tough to manage even when the Eurozone was flush and the various participants more-or-less liked one another. Now that they don't? Further integration -- particularly when it means that countries like Germany have more tools with which to force austerity -- is a very tough case to make to populations that were more skeptical about the Eurozone than their leaders to begin with, and have seen their worst fears realized.

But perhaps we really have come to the point that Europe must choose, quite quickly, between dissolution and integration. Or perhaps not. It's possible European leaders will come up with a way to ease the pressure for a few more months, only to find the crisis gathering force again ib December and January. Few thought the Eurozone's problems would ever get bad enough to threaten Italy's stability, much less Germany's bond sales. But it did. That doesn't really mean we've hit bottom. It means we don't really know where the bottom is.

* * *

Top op-eds

1) The Eurozone has a matter of days to avoid collapse, reports Wolfgang Munchau: "With the spectacular flop of the German bond auction and the alarming rise in short-term rates in Spain and Italy, the government bond market across the eurozone has ceased to function. The banking sector, too, is broken. Important parts of the eurozone economy are cut off from credit. The eurozone is now subject to a run by global investors, and a quiet bank run among its citizens. This massive erosion of trust has also destroyed the main plank of the rescue strategy. The European Financial Stability Facility derives its firepower from the guarantees of its shareholders. As the crisis has spread to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria, the EFSF itself is affected by the contagious spread of the disease. Unless something very drastic happens, the eurozone could break up very soon."

2) The Eurozone needs to break up, write Simon Johnson and Peter Boone: "The path of the euro zone is becoming clear. As conditions in Europe worsen, there will be fewer euro-denominated assets that investors can safely buy. Bank runs and large-scale capital flight out of Europe are likely. Devaluation can help growth but the associated inflation hurts many people and the debt restructurings, if not handled properly, could be immensely disruptive. Some nations will need to leave the euro zone. There is no painless solution. Ultimately, an integrated currency area may remain in Europe, albeit with fewer countries and more fiscal centralization. The Germans will force the weaker countries out of the euro area or, more likely, Germany and some others will leave the euro to form their own currency. The euro zone could be expanded again later, but only after much deeper political, economic and fiscal integration."

The key point to keep in mind: the United States is not in control of its own destiny in the Euro Financial Crisis. Our economic future is tied to Europe, and is at the mercy of European leaders who appear unwilling to accept that there is even a problem and are incapable of taking the measures necessary to head off an economic disaster. I have little faith that European leaders are capable of rising to this challenge. Domestic politics will trump the Euro Union.

Likewise, because we are in the 2012 election season, the only thing we will hear from GOP candidates and the right-wing noise machine of the conservative media is that "it's all Obama's fault." It is not. It is the fault of failed conservative economic theory to which the world's governments continue to cling because international bankers control so much wealth and power over governments today. Until that paradigm shifts we are at the mercy of the banksters of Wall Street and the world.

The Fire Next Time: The Euro Financial Crisis - A Perfect Storm Brewing?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A perfect storm may be brewing in the Euro Financial Crisis this week. Last week Germany had trouble selling its bonds as Europe's most stable economy. Disastrous" bond sale shakes confidence in Germany:

A "disastrous" German bond sale on Wednesday sparked fears that Europe's debt crisis was starting to threaten even Berlin, with the leaders of the euro zone's two biggest economies still at odds over a longer-term structural solution.

With contagion spreading, a majority of twenty prominent economists polled by Reuters predicted that the euro zone was unlikely to survive the crisis in its current form, with some envisaging a "core" group that would exclude Greece.

* * *

A special report by Fitch Ratings suggested France had limited room left to absorb shocks to its finances, such as a new downturn in growth or support for banks, without endangering its triple-A credit status.

* * *

The German debt agency could not find buyers for almost half a bond sale of 6 billion euros. That pushed the cost of borrowing over 10 years for the bloc's paymaster above those for the United States for the first time since October.

"It is a complete and utter disaster," said Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities in London.

* * *

After one of the least successful debt sales by Europe's powerhouse economy since the launch of the single currency, the euro fell to 1.336 against the dollar and European shares sank to 7-week lows.

* * *

The borrowing costs of almost all euro zone states, even those previously seen as safe such as France, Austria and the Netherlands, spiked in the last two weeks as panicky investors dumped paper no longer seen as risk-free.

* * *

Determined not to be pushed around by financial markets, Merkel is resisting calls, most notably from France, to allow the ECB to act more decisively.

Merkel said the EU treaty bars the ECB from acting as a lender of last resort and printing money to buy government debt. She rebuffed attempts to allow the bloc's rescue fund to borrow from the ECB or the IMF. However, "The best response to avoid contagion in countries like Spain and Italy is, from the French viewpoint, an intervention (or) the possibility of intervention or announcement of intervention by a lender of last resort, which would be the European Central Bank," French Finance Minister Francois Baroin told a conference in Paris.

Italy's borrowing rates skyrocketed on Friday after a grim set of bond auctions, with a new auction looming this coming Tuesday. Italy’s borrowing costs soar again, fueling concern about eurozone’s No. 3 economy - The Washington Post:

Another borrowing debacle could ratchet up fears that Italy has entered a debt spiral driving it toward bankruptcy and the 17-nation eurozone into its most acute crisis yet.

* * *

Friday’s dismal bond auction results for the eurozone’s third largest economy temporarily battered Europe’s stock markets.

The auction outcome also is likely to fuel calls for European Union officials to do more to jump-start economic growth and the European Central Bank to use more firepower to cool down a rapidly escalating debt crisis.

“We still haven’t found a response that reassures investors,” said Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the European Commission. “As long as we’re unable to do that, we’ll have very serious problems and discussions in Europe.”

* * *

Following the grim auction news, Italy’s borrowing rates in the markets shot higher, with the 10-year yield spiking 0.34 percentage point to 7.30 percent — above the 7 percent threshold that forced other euro nations into bailouts.

Driving market fears is the knowledge that Italy is too big for Europe to bail out.

Also on Friday, Standard & Poor’s downgraded Belgium’s credit standing to AA from AA+, saying it might not be able to cut its towering debt load any time soon. Ratings agencies this week cautioned that France could lose its AAA rating if the crisis grew. On Thursday, agencies lowered the ratings of Portugal and Hungary to junk. Banks Build Contingencies for Euro Zone Breakup - NYTimes.com:

While European leaders still say there is no need to draw up a Plan B, some of the world’s biggest banks, and their supervisors, are doing just that.

“We cannot be, and are not, complacent on this front,” Andrew Bailey, a regulator at Britain’s Financial Services Authority, said this week. “We must not ignore the prospect of a disorderly departure of some countries from the euro zone,” he said.

Banks including Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital and Nomura issued a cascade of reports this week examining the likelihood of a breakup of the euro zone. “The euro zone financial crisis has entered a far more dangerous phase,” analysts at Nomura wrote on Friday. Unless the European Central Bank steps in to help where politicians have failed, “a euro breakup now appears probable rather than possible,” the bank said.

* * *

United States regulators have been pushing American banks like Citigroup and others to reduce their exposure to the euro zone. In Asia, authorities in Hong Kong have stepped up their monitoring of the international exposure of foreign and local banks in light of the European crisis.

* * *

“While in the United States there is clearly a view that Europe can break up, here, we believe Europe must remain as it is,” said one French banker, summing up the thinking at French banks. “So no one is saying, ‘We need a fallback,’ ” said the banker, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

* * *

The main danger of a euro breakup, said Stephen Jen, managing partner at SLJ Macro Partners in London, is “redenomination risk,” the unpredictable effect that a euro breakup would have on financial assets as newly created currencies sought their own levels in the market and the value of contracts drawn up in euros came into question.

Most people hope that will not happen. “Remember when Lehman went bankrupt — nobody could anticipate what happened next,” said the French banker who was not authorized to speak publicly. “That was a company, not a country. If a country leaves the euro — multiply the Lehman effect by 10,” he said.

Hoping that it can't happen is not a plan. This is like the French hoping that the Maginot Line was a defense against the Nazi Blitzkrieg. The Nazis simply went around it. As Gen. George Patton opined, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." So is blind faith in a financial system that is collapsing under its own weight all around you. Europe had better find a Plan B soon or the world's economy is headed for recession, if not worse.

Epic Media Fail: Occupy vs. Black Friday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have noticed that local television news broadcasts have been doing reports on the Occupy Tucson movement at or near the top of their news broadcast almost every night for the past month.

The general tone of the corporate media villagers has been negative. How awful it is that these people are "camping" out in a public park and being arrested every night and costing the city overtime pay for cops -- blah, blah, blah. (Since this has been a peaceful protest, there would not be any costs associated with this protest if the cops would just leave the protestors the hell alone - duh!)

But there was an entirely different perspective from our corporate media villagers in the tone of their coverage of people actually camping out on private property and trespassing in the parking lots of retailers for up to a week in advance of the Madison Avenue advertising colossus known as "Black Friday."

The very same media villagers who every night had gone out of their way to insult "We Are The 99%" were talking up these greedy trespassing bargain hunters camped out in parking lots like it was Woodstock or something -- What fun! How exciting! One chirpy news anchor asked the equally excited reporter if she had used her press I.D. to move to the head of the line to get a ganga (she said no). Nothing like media participation to hype an event.

h/t Daily Kos

And what about the wave of violence all this heavy promotion of "Black Friday" by the corporate media and their commercial advertisers engendered across the country on Friday? Where is the accountability? They were responsible for creating the environment in which violence was to be expected.

Customers and off-duty cops using pepper spray and tasers at Walmart? Dozens of people injured across the country. And the grandfather who was face-slammed into the concrete floor of a Buckeye Walmart for allegedly shop lifting? (no, I will not post the video). Grandfather roughed up at Buckeye Walmart, shoppers say. Animals! What the hell is wrong with people?

courtesy of Chad Black, cell phone photo

Are we supposed to be grateful that no one was trampeled to death at Walmart this year? Jdimytai Damour (2008); Black Friday Madness: Remembering Jdimytai Damour (2009). There were promises that this madness would be banned after Damour's death in 2008. Instead, the madness has only grown worse.

Thanksgiving is the quintissential American holiday, it is a national holiday -- no retail employee should be asked to work on Thanksgiving Day. "Doorbuster" sales (the term is meant to conjure images of a mob busting down the doors) in early morning hours should be banned. There is no reason why retailers cannot open at a reasonable early hour of 6:00 a.m., which is plenty early enough. And no camping in the parking lot. These advertising gimmicks are encouraging mob behavior and violence.

Here's a novel idea: whatever happened to "every day low prices"? Do we really need "loss leaders" to get people into the store to shop? Expecially when retailers offer only "limited quantities" at the "loss leader" price? This only encourages mob behavior and violence. Treat your customers fairly with every day low prices and they will keep coming back.

This animal behavior can be contained with reasonable regulation. No business will earn any less profit, and no one's Christmas will suffer the worse for it.

By comparison to these "Black Friday" shoppers, the Occupy movement is the model of civility. Something the corporate media villagers should take to heart in their plainly biased reporting.

New Hampshire's Union Leader endorses Not-the-Romney Newt Gingrich

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

New Hampshire's ultra-conservative newspaper The Union Leader on Sunday endorsed Not-the-Romney Newt Gingrich for the GOP Presidential primary in New Hampshire. The endorsement appears in The Union Leader print edition only. So, to the Huffington Post! Newt Gingrich Endorsed By New Hampshire Union Leader:

New Hampshire's largest newspaper on Sunday endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 2012 GOP presidential race, signaling that rival Mitt Romney isn't the universal favorite and potentially resetting the contest before the state's lead-off primary Jan. 10.

"We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing," The New Hampshire Union Leader said in its front-page editorial, which was as much a promotion of Gingrich as a discreet rebuke of Romney.

"We don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job," the editorial said.

Romney enjoys solid leads in New Hampshire polls. . . A poll released last week showed him with 42 percent support among likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire. Gingrich followed with 15 percent in the WMUR-University of New Hampshire Granite State poll. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas posted 12 percent support and former Utah Gov. John Huntsman found 8 percent support in that survey.

The front page one editorial, signed by publisher Joseph W. McQuaid, suggested that the only state-wide newspaper in New Hampshire was ready to again assert itself as a player in the GOP primary.

"We don't have to agree with them on every issue," the newspaper wrote in an editorial that ran across the width of the front page. "We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear."

* * *

The Union Leader's move could shuffle the race and further boost Gingrich. In recent weeks, he has seen a surge in some polls as Republicans focus more closely on deciding which candidate they consider best positioned to take on President Barack Obama.

"A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington," the newspaper wrote. "Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again."

"Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate," McQuaid wrote. "But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running."

* * *

The Union Leader's backing could give him a nudge in New Hampshire and provide a steady stream of criticism.

Four years earlier, the newspaper threw its support to Arizona Sen. John McCain's bid and used front page opinion columns and editorials to boost him and criticize chief rival Romney. In the time since, Romney has worked to court Union Leader publisher Joe McQuaid, who often runs columns on the newspaper's front page under his signature.

"The Union Leader's style is we don't just endorse once," McQuaid told The Washington Post in 1999. "We endorse every damn day."

Ahahahaha! Keep in mind that all GOP primaries prior to April 1 will award delegates proportionally by the percentage of the vote. The Not-The-Romney candidates do not have to win, they just have to keep it close to deny Romney enough delegates to win prior to the winner-take-all primaries after April 1 -- by which time one of the Not-The-Romney candidates will have emerged as the conservatives' choice to challenge Romney.

Political Calendar: Week of November 27, 2011

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Political Calendar is posted on Sundays. Please send us notice of your political events prior to the Sunday before your event (7 days would be most helpful). See the calendar icon in the right-hand column of the blog page for easy access to the calendar.

To volunteer to Recall Jan Brewer go to Volunteer – - Citizens for a Better Arizona.

Political Calendar For The Week of November 27, 2011

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Monday, November 28, Noon: Democrats of Greater Tucson luncheon, Dragon's View Restaurant (400 N. Bonita, South of St. Mary's Road between the Freeway and Grande Avenue, turn South at Furr's Cafeteria), buffet lunch costs $8.50. Featured speaker is Attorney Barry Kirschner on the topic: Where have all the legal remedies gone? Visit DGT's web site at www.tucsondemocrats.org. Next Week: No DGT in favor of the Moving Tucson Forward: Inauguration Celebration at the TCC. Following Week: DGT board nominations and elections - membership dues must be up-to-date by November 30 to be eligible and to vote.

Monday, November 28, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 27 meeting, at the Main Library, 101 N. Stone Avenue (parking in basement under library). For more information please contact Greg Wagner at gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com or (520) 784-8355.

Tuesday, November 29, 5:30 p.m.: Precinct committeeperson training, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). Topics will include basic PC duties, tools available to the PC, relationship between the PC and the structure of the party from local to national, legalese as well as other interesting information. All new PCs are strongly advised to attend. Those who need a refresher are welcome to attend as well. Please RSVP to Mohur Sidhwa: msidhwa@cox.net. Please include your precinct number when you RSVP as we will be preparing materials especially for you.

Saturday, December 3, 8:00 a.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley Roadside Clean-up! DOV gives back to the community via meaningful activities like cleaning our adopted section of road along La Cholla, from Hardy north to Overton. It’s easy to clean if we get enough volunteers to help us. Bring gloves and anything that could help you pick up litter. We will provide the bags and water. We need your support. Meet at the turnout on La Cholla. Look for our cars. Thanks for the help to keep our roads clean and beautiful. For more inforamtion please contact Mike Dayton at (520) 742-3774.

LD 30 December Meeting & Potluck

Saturday, December 3, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 30 monthly meeting & Potluck, at the Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 First Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). This meeting will be a working session to review the opportunities and challenges ahead of us for 2012. Our goal will be to put together a political timetable, working backwards from November 2, 2012. Additionally, we’ll review LD 30 committee assignments. For more information please contact Marilee Malmberg at azld30dems@gmail.com or (520) 301-5246.

Amigos de Saldate Contra Pearce

Saturday, December 3, 2:00p.m.: Please join Amigos de Saldate Contra Pearce for a victory celebration, at Las Cazuelitas West, 1365 W. Grant Road (Grant Road West of I-10).

Saguaro Eastside Democrats Wine and Cheese Fund Raiser

Saturday, December 3, 4:00 p.m.: Saguaro Eastside Democrats will be a fundraiser for our club's 2012 activities at the Civano HOA Clubhouse, 10501 E. Seven Generations Way (off Houghton Road). Tickets are $20 per person. The winemaster will be Jon Rogers of "Wines Without Mystery" and brother of the Pima County Democratic Party's chairman, Jeff Rogers. Jon, who has 20 years experience of hosting wine and cheese parties, will introduce four wines of different types for tasting along with matching cheeses. There will also be a dessert. In addition, several bottles of wine will be given as door prizes to lucky participants. To purchase tickets please contact Steve Gall (stevejgall@hotmail.com or (520) 777-3000), or individual board members and at our November meeting.

DCSRA December Meeting & Potluck

Saturday, December 3, 5:30 p.m.: DCSRA December Meeting & Potluck with Special Guests declared 2012 Democratic candidates, at the Desert Hills Social Center, 2980 S. Camino Del Sol (Green Valley). We will hold the election for DCSRA board candidates, as well as enjoy the company of declared 2012 Democratic candidates, and a few surprise guests! The main course will include spiral sliced ham & chicken. Attendees are asked to bring side dishes using the following guidelines: Last names beginning A-F bring SALAD, Last names beginning with G-O bring VEGETABLE DISH or CASSEROLE, Last names beginning with P-Z bring DESSERT, BYOB for alcoholic beverages. Guests are encouraged to bring food donations (non-perishable or canned food products needed) and/or your check made out to the Amado Community Food Bank - make sure the memo includes designation for milk, eggs & other food products. Please RSVP by calling Democratic HQ Green Valley at 520.838.0590 by November 28th.

Note: for additional Democratic Party events around the state see http://azdem.org/events/Calendar/.

Special Announcements:

Moving Tucson Forward: Inauguration Celebration Luncheon

Monday, December 5, Noon: Moving Tucson Forward: Inauguration Celebration, at the Tucson Convention Center Ballroom, 260 S. Church Avenue. Inauguration day celebration for Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild, and Tucson Council Members Regina Romero, Paul Cunningham, and Shirley Scott. Vice Mayor Karin Uhlich and Council Members Richard Fimbres and Steve Kozachik are invited guests. Individual Tickets are $75, Table Sponsor $750. Please RSVP to (520) 326-3716 or online at www.PimaDems.org.

Monday, December 5, 7:00 p.m.: Douglas Area Democrats meeting, at Los Obreros Hall, 406 8th Street (Douglas). For more information please contact Corny Munoz at douglasrfl@hotmail.com or (520) 227-7125.

Tuesday, December 6, 5:30 p.m.: Greater Huachuca Area Democratic Club meeting, at the Cochise County Democratic Party HQ, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). For more information please contact Maggs at maggzilla2u@yahoo.com or (520) 417-1533.

Tuesday, December 6, 6:30 p.m.: (Special Date) Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting.

Tuesday, December 6, 7:30 p.m.: The Tucson Festival of Books presents a special interview and book-signing event with Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and co-author of the newly released book, "Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope," at the University of Arizona's Centennial Hall. This ticketed event is free and open to the general public. Tickets available on Nov. 15. VISIT http://uanews.org/node/43300 for full details.

DCSRA Discussion Group

Wednesdays, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a Current Events Discussion Group at Green Valley Democratic Party HQ, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Upstairs Meeting Room (elevator is available). Join us at the weekly meeting of the Democratic Headquarters Current Events Discussion Group. We'll talk about some of the major events of the previous week, including but not limited to political topics, and try and go behind the news for a deeper understanding. For more information, please contact Amy Johnson at acalkins10@aol.com.

Wednesday, December 7, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 28 meeting, at the Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 First Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). Annual holiday pot luck. PC's are encouraged to bring their families. We are collecting for the Community Food Bank, so please bring cash or nonperishable food items. For more information please contact Ted Prezelski at prezelski@aol.com or (520) 326-3716 (leave message).

The 2012 Arizona Democratic Candidate Summit

Friday December 9 and Saturday December 10: The 2012 Democratic Candidate Summit will be held on December 9-10, at the Wyndham Hotel, 50 East Adams Street (Phoenix). This two-day event will feature campaign essentials that every candidate, potential candidate and campaign principal should add to their 2012 artillery. All those interested are invited to participate in one of two tracks. Candidate Track: Participants in the candidate track should be Democratic candidates or potential candidates for the 2012 election cycle or future elections. The candidate track will be appropriate for all levels of government. Participants will receive training in the areas of fundraising, strategic communications/​messaging and grassroots networking. Campaign Manager Track: Participants in the campaign manager track should be the campaign manager of an upcoming Democratic campaign or a key campaign operative. Participants will receive training on building and maintaining a campaign operation. Areas will include campaign plan logistics, targeting, budgets and field operations. The training will run from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. Dec. 9 and 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Dec. 10. Registration begins at 9 a.m. and the training will begin each day at 9:30 a.m. SHARP. There is a nominal $35 registration fee to attend this seminar. Arizona Democratic Party and Arizona List will provide breakfast, lunch, supplies and training materials that you will need throughout the day. Participants must commit to attending the entire program in order to participate. Participants should RSVP by Dec. 7 at 5 p.m. to Jackie Adams at jadams@azdem.org or (602) 234-6803.

Arizona Democratic Party Hall of Fame Reception - With DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Friday, December 9, 6:00 p.m.: The Arizona Democratic Party is very proud to announce that this year’s Hall of Fame Reception keynote speaker will be none other than DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Reception at the Heard Museum, 2301 N. Central Avenue (Phoenix). Doors will open at 6 p.m. so guests can tour the Heard Museum. Reception 6:30 p.m. Keynote address 7:30 p.m. Dem-AZ rate $50, Precinct Committee members $75, Individual ticket $100, sponsorships available. Click here to RSVP and purchase your ticket.  Please click here for more event information.

Saturday, December 10, 10:00 a.m.: Mule Mountain Democrat Club meeting, at the Bisbee Senior Center on Collins Road (behind the Safeway off Naco Road). For more information please contact John Viverto at Vivertos@aol.com or (520) 432-2366.

Saturday, December 10, 3:00 p.m.: Saddlebrooke Democratic Club meeting, at the Saddlebrooke Club House, 66567 E. Catalina Hills Drive (Saddlebrooke). For more information please contact Holly Lyon at (703) 989-0764.

Las Adelitas Posada to Benefit Save Ethnic Studies

Saturday, December 10, 6:00 p.m.: Please Join Las Adelitas Arizona for a Traditional Mexican Posada to Benefit Save Ethnic Studies in AZ. A traditional Mexican posada is a holiday party that includes delicious food and drink, music, singing, pinatas, fun for the kids, and more! Tickets are $20 for individuals and $10 per student. Please join us to learn more about what can be done to defend Mexican American Studies in TUSD and enjoy a fun, family friendly holiday tradition. For more information please contact LasAdelitasArizona@gmail.com or check out our facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Las-Adelitas-Arizona/125491824156168, or the Save Ethnic Studies in AZ facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Save-Ethnic-Studies-in-Arizona/118309161523946.

Democrats of Oro Valley Holiday Party

Monday, December 12, 5:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley holiday party, at Macayo’s Mexican Restaurant, 7360 N. Oracle Road (Tucson). A cover charge of $10 for members and $15 for non-members will be collected at the door which goes toward the round-the-clock Miniature DINNER Buffet and the Holiday Dessert. Special Happy Hour Drinks: $3 in effect for Macayo’s Margaritas, House Wine, Domestic & Imported Beers and Well Drinks. Unlimited refills of coffee, tea & soda: $2.49. Don’t forget to bring some extra money to participate in our DOV Holiday Raffle. For more information please contact Mike Dayton at (520) 742-3774.

Monday, December 12, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 29 meeting, at the Sam Lena Library, 1607 S. 6th Avenue. For more information please contact Matt Kopec at LD29Chair@gmail.com or (520) 400-3020.

Wednesday, December 14, 11:30 a.m.: Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild and City Councilman Paul Cunningham are hosting a roundtable with members of the business community, at the Eastside City Hall, 7575 E. Speedway Blvd. The roundtable, which will focus on Mayor Rothschild's 180-day plan. Space is limited so please RSVP to (520) 791-4687.

Wednesday, December 14, Noon: Northwest Democrats meeting, at the Coco's Restaurant (back room), 7250 N. Oracle Road (Tucson). Featured speaker is attorney and activist Robert Schwartz on the topic of possible ballot propostions, candidates and issues for the upcoming 2012 election. For more information please contact Contact Rod McLeod or Harvey Akeson at (520) 297-0095.

Thursday, December 15, 7:00 pm.: Heritage Highlands/Dove Mountain Democratic Club meeting, at the Heritage Highlands Club House, 4949 W Heritage Club Blvd. (Marana). For more information please contact Sandi Tiffany at stiffany60@mac.com.

Friday, December 16, 12:30 p.m.: Democratic Women in Action meeting, at Friends in Deed, 301 W. Camino Casa Verde (Green Valley). For more information please contact Laurie Cirrincione at crinkster5@msn.com or (520) 625-3133.

Legislative District 27 Winter Solstice Party - Save the Date!

Friday, December 16, 6:00 p.m.: Legislative District 27 Winter Solstice Party and fund raiser. Save the Date! Details TBA.

Pima County Democratic Party Holiday Pot Luck - Save the Date!

Sunday, December 18, 3:00 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Holiday Pot Luck, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). Save the Date! Details TBA.

Tuesday, December 20: Hanukkah begins.

Sunday, December 25: Christmas Day.

Sunday, January 1, 2012: New Year's Day.

Tuesday, January 3: Iowa Caucus.

BEYOND: Celebrate, Commemorate, Commit - Save the Date!

Saturday, January 7: BEYOND: Celebrate, Commemorate, Commit - for a community-wide event to commemorate and celebrate loved ones injured and lost on January 8th, 2011, at sites all over Pima County. We will move beyond the tragedy and commit to a better future with events that are safe, fun, inclusive and active across Southern Arizona. We will walk, hike, run, ride, stroll and come together to remember what happened, acknowledge how it changed us, and celebrate our community. Stay tuned for more details. Visit www.beyond-tucson.org for updates. for more information please contact info@beyond-tucson.org. For Press Inquiries please contact press@beyond-tucson.org.

Monday, January 9: Opening day of Arizona Legislature.

Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire Primary.

Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area: An Evening With David Fitzsimmons

Tuesday, January 17, 6:00 p.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts An Evening With David Fitzsimmons, at the Desert Diamond Casino, 1100 E. Poma Mine Road at I-19. Cash bar at 5:30 p.m. Dinner at 6:00 p.m. Political Satire at 7:00 p..m. Menue Options include Steak, chicken, fish or vegetarian (we will call you to obtain your preference). Ticket Pricing: DCSRA members - Basic $50, Sponsor $100, Patron $200; Non-Members - Basic $75, Sponsor $125, Patron $225. Pay on line using ActBlue, or by check: mail your check payable to DCSRA, P.O.Box 131, Green Valley, AZ 85622, Attn: Jan. 17. Seating is limited. Please RSVP via ticket payment by November 25th. All proceeds go toward DCSRA & Democratic HQ Green Valley. For more information please contact gvdemocrats@gmail.com or call HQ at (520) 838-0590.

Arizona Democratic Party Winter State Committee Meeting, Phoenix, AZ - Save the Date!

Saturday, January 21: Arizona Democratic Party Winter State Committee Meeting, in Phoenix, AZ. Save the Date! Details TBA.

Saturday, January 21: South Carolina Primary.

Pima County Democratic Party General Meeting, Tucson AZ- Save the Date!

Saturday, January 28: Pima County Democratic Party General Meeting, in Tucson, AZ. Save the Date! Details TBA.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida Primary.

Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual Presidents' Day Dinner - Save the Date!

Monday, February 27: Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual Presidents' Day Dinner/Fundraiser, at Cafe Roca in Bisbee. Our special guest is political cartoonist and humorist David Fitzsimmons. Save the Date! Details TBA.

Cartoon of The Week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

(Repost) 2012 Democratic Candidate Summit

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcment from the Arizona Democratic Party:

2012 Democratic Candidate Summit - December 9, 10

The Arizona Democratic Party and Arizona List are proud to partner in an important resource for candidates going into the 2012 election cycle. The 2012 Democratic Candidate Summit will be held on Dec. 9-10 at the Wyndham Hotel in downtown Phoenix. This two-day event will feature campaign essentials that every candidate, potential candidate and campaign principal should add to their 2012 artillery. All those interested are invited to participate in one of two tracks:

Candidate Track
Participants in the candidate track should be Democratic candidates or potential candidates for the 2012 election cycle or future elections. The candidate track will be appropriate for all levels of government. Participants will receive training in the areas of fundraising, strategic communications/messaging and grassroots networking.

Campaign Manager Track
Participants in the campaign manager track should be the campaign manager of an upcoming Democratic campaign or a key campaign operative. Participants will receive training on building and maintaining a campaign operation. Areas will include campaign plan logistics, targeting, budgets and field operations.

The training will run from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. Dec. 9 and 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Dec. 10. Registration begins at 9 a.m. and the training will begin each day at 9:30 a.m. SHARP.

There is a nominal $35 registration fee to attend this seminar. Arizona Democratic Party and Arizona List will provide breakfast, lunch, supplies and training materials that you will need throughout the day. Partial participation is not possible. Participants must commit to attending the entire program in order to participate.

For questions, please call or email Mira Jones at 252-375-6951 or mira@arizonalist.org

Participants should RSVP by Dec. 7 at 5 p.m. to Jackie Adams at 602-234-6803 or jadams@azdem.org

(Update) ALEC States & Nation Policy Summit Nov. 30 - Dec. 2 in Scottsdale

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) updated its web page for its upcoming States & Nation Policy Summit at the Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, 6902 E. Greenway Parkway, Scottsdale, Arizona from November 30 - December 2, 2011. Registration is closed. Registration. The Agenda is here.

Michael Bryan, editor & publisher of Blog for Arizona, requested media credentials, and finally received a response this week:

Michael:

Thank you for your interest in covering the American Legislative Exchange Council’s States and Nation Policy Summit November 30-December 2. We will not be able to issue media credentials for BlogforArizon.com as our media policy states that “[j]ournalists may not register as ‘media’ if their news outlet is funded by a think-tank, political party/candidate, activist/advocacy organization, lobbying organization, trade association or corporation.” Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
Kaitlyn Buss

Funding? What funding? Is the boss holding out on us? Is this spokesperson for ALEC just ignorant of the facts? Or is this a classic dodge to deny media credentials to a media outlet that has a decidedly anti-ALEC view in its coverage of ALEC? I'm going with the latter.

"AZ resists ALEC" is an Arizona grassroots organization with an informative web site and is planning an "Occupy ALEC" event. AZ resists ALEC:

This website is dedicated to the rising resistance against ALEC, their planned summit, and all corporate greed that would serve to perpetuate state oppression in already impoverished communities on already occupied land. Here you will find a lot more information on the link between ALEC, the private prison industry, and recent legislation like Arizona’s own SB-1070; you will find news articles, reports, and websites exposing ALEC; you will find multimedia pieces explaining the growing and explicit connections between corporate power and community oppression; you will find links to other websites and organizations building resistance in Arizona; and lastly, you will find ways to plug in.

We’re calling on all people to take a stand.

*Come to Phoenix from November 29-December 3 to tell ALEC we will not allow them to further criminalize and oppress our communities in order to fatten the coffers of their corporate members.

*Organize an action in your community for November 30th.

*Keep checking the website for updates on information, events, and actions.

*Spread the word about ALEC and how its members and their greed have affected your home, your family, your life.

AZ resists ALEC | Facebook

AZ resists ALEC (azresistsalec) on Twitter

The 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature hasn't started yet, but it's easy to see it's going to be a long one

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

In approximately a month and a half, the 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature will start, and while there will be some major differences from the 2011 session (new Speaker of the House, new President of the Senate, no Russell Pearce!!), some things don't change.

Usually, sitting legislators start "pre-filing" bills starting around two months before the start of a session, and this year is no different.

Sometimes, as with Sen. David Schapira's SB1001 last year (restoring transplant coverage to AHCCCS), the early measures are meant to make a statement about where the priorities of the lege should be, knowing full well that the bill(s) won't pass (and Schapira's SB1001 was never even heard in committee, much less given a floor vote).

Other times, the bills are introduced to give the sponsors an early start on lobbying their colleagues for passage.

The first couple of bills introduced this year, including a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, have to do with creating a mechanism for exchanging state trust lands for the purpose of protecting military reservations from encroachment by developments (this summary may be a little oversimplified, but these bills aren't the focus of the post.  If you're interested, the bill is here, the proposed amendment is here).

The amendment is necessary because under the Arizona Constitution, those trust lands can only be sold or transferred for the benefit of the state's education system.

The lege has been trying to crack that restriction for years.  They tried a similar scheme in 2010, only to see the measure go down to defeat, at least in part because a majority of Arizona's voters don't trust the legislature or its intentions.

In addition to those, at around the same time, Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) filed a different amendment proposal, this one to overturn the prohibitions in the AZ Constitution on damage awards in lawsuits.  They've tried this one before, but limiting or eliminating punitive damage awards is a pet project of corporate lobbyists and their "friends"/tools in Congress and state legislatures across the country.

After that, there were a few innocuous "technical corrections" bills introduced by Rep. Judy "Birther" Burges.  Officially, technical corrections bills are supposed to contain minor, non-controversial fixes to things like typos, misspellings, and bad grammar/legalese to laws, and generally speaking, the bills do just that.  However, they rarely pass the lege as technical corrections bills.  Mostly, they exist to serve as "vehicle" bills that can be changed late in the legislative session by "strike everything" amendments, aka "strikers.". 

Strikers frequently turn previously innocuous bills (like technical corrections bills) into utter bile.  Of course some bills, like 2010's infamous SB1070, are amended only in specific language, not actual intent.  For example, SB1070 started off life as an ugly anti-immigrant bill and was amended into an ugly anti-immigrant bill.

All this background brings us to Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction).  While until now he has been an almost-unknown backbencher, it looks like he wants to make a splash during this coming election year.

Among others, he has proposed bills that...

...would halve the maximurm income level to qualify for coverage under the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS).  ALTCS provides coverage to low-income senior citizens or disabled  who need long-term medical care (i.e. - nursing home, assisted living, or ongoing home health aides)

...would arbitrarily impose a limit on the amount of "respite care" that someone covered by ALTCS could receive in a calendar year at 360 hours.  Respite care is perhaps best characterized as a relief pitcher for long-term caregivers. 

...would grant a teacher the right to kick any student out of class for any reason, and that action would not be reviewable by or appealable to anybody.  Fillmore's proposal is written so broadly that a teacher (say, a follower of Russell Pearce's) could order a student out of class because the student's skin is, shall we say, too tan, and there would be no recourse (though a federal court would probably step in eventually).

...would give school principals the authority to fire any teacher in their schools for any reason, subject to the review and approval of the district's school superintendent.  The measure also includes a clause that bars school district governing boards from entering into collective bargaining agreements that inhibit the ability to exercise that authority, including the establishment of a "due process" process for the teachers.  No AZ Republican wants to appear to be "pro-teacher"...  The measure also takes control of textbook selection from the hands of the governing boards of individual school district and bestows it on the school superintendent of the county in which the school district is located.

...would bar courts from paying for, under any circumstances, court-ordered anger management and domestic violence counseling for defendants.

...would establish a minimum cost to the beneficiaries of state employee health insurance plans of 18 percent of the overall cost.  Currently, there is no minimum or maximum limit in statute.  While this measure would establish a minimum limit, it would not establish a maximum cost to the beneficiaries.

...and in his piece de resistance, Fillmore has proposed an amendment to the AZ Constitution regarding punitive damage awards, like Harper's proposal above.  However, this one has an "Isn't that crazy, quirky, loony Arizona just so precious?" sort of way -

His proposal doesn't eliminate punitive damage awards,  Instead, it would mandate the confiscation of such awards by the state and puts the monies into a fund that would be dedicated to funding K-12 education in Arizona.

If passed, not only would this measure effectively reduce the number of lawsuits with punitive damage awards (if the victims of injuries cannot benefit from such lawsuits, why would they file them?), it would also serve as a smokescreen to cover moves to reduce education funding in AZ (eventually, the lege would base the budget for education on projections of the amount of money available in the fund established in this proposal, and when those funds decreased, they would use it as an excuse to further cut education).

This measure, as with Harper's, could very well be a welcoming gift for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization crafted to facilitate corporate influence over state level legislation.  The conference will be held in a Scottsdale resort.

ALEC has long pushed for corporation-protecting limits on lawsuits in general and punitive damage awards in particular (examples here, here and here, courtesy ALECExposed.org).

Fillmore and Harper are among the many members of the R caucus in the AZ lege who are also members of ALEC. but in Arizona, that association isn't limited to the legislature.  Check out this notice from the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -

Notice of a Joint Appearance of a Quorum of Commissioners


(Not an Official Meeting of the Arizona Corporation Commission)

November 30 - December 2, 2011

Location:
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa
6902 East Greenway Parkway
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

This notice is provided as a courtesy to the public that three or more Commissioners may be present at the above location to attend the American Legislative Exchange Council, States and Nation Policy Summit.  The Commissioners attending this meeting will not vote on any issue.

Please note:  The ACC is supposed to *regulate* corporations, not *party* with them.  Of course, current ACC member Brenda Burns is a former president of ALEC, so she (and the other Rs on the ACC) may not make that distinction.

I'd love to be able to tell you that the above measures are likely to be the worst offered up by Republican AZ legislators during the coming session, but it seems likely that they are going to for the "full nutty" this session.  They realize that one of two possibilities exist.

Either a majority of voters will NOT hold them responsible for their shameless disregard for the will of the voter (attacks on the independence of the voter-established independent redistricting process, their brazen contempt for the rule of law (assaulting a woman by the side of a Phoenix freeway, pointing a gun at a reporter in the Senate building), or their sacrifice of the interests of their "official" constituents (no jobs, gutting education) on the altar of corporate profits (corporate tax cuts paid for by gutting education and rest of the social infrastructure in AZ), or this year will be their last best chance to wreak unchecked havoc upon the state, for at least a couple of election cycles.

Giffords media coverage, at home and a few miles up I-10

by David Safier

The Star has had a less than cordial relationship with Gabby Giffords in the past. It gave her scant coverage which often leaned toward the negative. After the shooting, though, how could anyone give her less than warm and comprehensive coverage? The Star has definitely been more friendly toward Giffords since then, but it's still stingy in length and depth of its coverage of someone who has become a national and international figure.

Case in point: Giffords' presence at Davis-Monthan on Thanksgiving. This was a moment when she put herself out in public, demonstrating in real time the extent of her recovery. Here is the entire coverage in the Star.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords helped serve a Thanksgiving meal at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base on Thursday.

Giffords arrived in the dining hall accompanied by her retired astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.

Giffords used only her left hand as she served, a sign that physical damage remains from the injuries she suffered when she was shot in January.

The couple also mingled with the crowd; they were there for about an hour.

That's as Dragnet, Jack Webb, "Just the facts, ma'am" as coverage gets.

Compare the Star coverage with the Republic, the paper of those folks up the road a spell who generally don't like Tucson all that much. The story is about five times as long, including anecdotes like this:

[Giffords] did tell Airman 1st Class Millie Gray, of Kansas City, Mo., "Happy Thanksgiving, thank you for your service."

Gray said she had intended to only grab a plate and head back to her dorm to eat, until she heard that Giffords was going to be there.

"She's such an inspiration and her story is so inspirational, it really made me proud. I felt very proud and very humble," Gray said. "It just feels really good to see that she is out here supporting the troops, and just continuing to be an inspiration and a strong role model for Americans in general.

"She was very warm, asked how our meal was, which, of course, was amazing. The food is awesome. She and her husband were very, just delightful and asked a lot of questions. It was just very warm-hearted, and I told her she was an inspiration and she was very thankful for that."

[snip]

"It's always special to have a member of Congress come and spend time with the troops and show support," said Brig. Gen. Jon Norman, acting commander of the 12th Air Forces, Southern. "But after everything that she's been through, it's a little bit more special."

The term "human interest story" comes to mind. This, by the way, was an AP article which, I imagine, the Star had access to. The paper didn't even need to put a reporter on the story to give it adequate coverage.

Oh, and the Republic has another, shorter piece with this headline.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords included in Time's 'Person of the Year' poll

You think the home town folks might be interested in news like that?

Somebody up there at the Star doesn't like Gabby. The paper's coverage has gone from negative to reluctant. I guess the idea of promoting what's good about the city, whether it's the growth of downtown or the amazing and, you could say, heroic recovery of our U.S. Representative who a gunman tried to kill, is not what the Star is all about.

AIRC Update: Public hearings resume

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) has posted notice of three public hearings next week:

Location:

Fiesta Resort - Fiesta Ballroom
2100 S. Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282

Date & Time:

Tuesday, November 29 at 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, November 30 at 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 1at 1:00 p.m.

The AIRC will be reviewing public input received during the second round of public hearings to make adjustments to the "draft'" maps Agenda Info as the AIRC moves forward to completion of "final" maps to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice in December.

(Assuming there is no further unconstitutional and unlawful interference from the Red Queen and our lawless Tea-Publican legislature.)

Our Lawless Tea-Publican Legislature

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The lawlessness of our Tea-Publican legislature is best exemplified by statemements made by House Speaker Andy Tobin in response to the Arizona Supreme Court ruling late on Wednesday.

The Arizona Republic reported State's high court rebuffs Brewer's request:

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said Brewer should again oust Mathis, calling the Supreme Court's ruling "pathetic." He also said he would support a special session to either repeal or reform the voter-approved initiative that created the five-member commission[.]

The Arizona Capitol Times reported Court: Brewer, Senate failed to demonstrate Mathis neglected duty:

House Speaker Andy Tobin said the Supreme Court “overstepped its bounds.”

“I fully support any and all efforts by the governor to immediately remove Chairwoman Mathis and call the Legislature into special session to refer a measure to the ballot allowing voters the opportunity to repeal this commission, which has shown total disregard for the Arizona Constitution. We must act immediately to ensure that this broken and biased process does not continue to unfold,” Tobin said in a press statement.

This man should not be serving in any elective office with that attitude, let alone as Speaker of the House. Tobin's utter contempt for the rule of law and the authority of the co-equal judicial branch of government under our constitutional democracy speaks volumes to the authoritarianism of our lawless Tea-Publican legislature. As does his utter contempt for the will of the voters who enacted Prop. 106 into the Arizona Constitution by a citizens initiative expressly to take redistricting out of the hands of fools such as Tobin.

The GOP Ninth Commandment: Thou SHALT bear false witness against thy president

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this Rewrite segment, Lawrence O'Donnell takes Governor Goodhair Rick Perry and shameless shape-shifter Willard "Mittens" Romney to task for their purposefully deceitful ads. O'Donnell also takes the establishment media to task for being unwilling to call a liar a liar in the interest of "balanced" reporting over truthful reporting -- "which is why the establishment media is speeding towards irrelevance."

O'Donnell calls Willard Mittens Romney a "pathological" liar, a point on which I agree. What is the source of the pathology? Is it nature? (some physiological reason). Or is it nurture? (something in his socialization or upbringing). I don't pretend to know the answer. I just know that Mittens is a pathological liar who should never be president of the United States.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thanksgiving: GOP edition

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Jimmy Kimmel Show is awesome at dubbing in audio to children's cartoons. In this version, the "Survivor - GOP Presidential Primary" debate from a week ago is dubbed into a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving

by David Safier

Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly joined Brig. Gen. Norman and Col. Meger today to serve a holiday meal at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

Trouble in AZ Repub City?

by David Safier

Looks like our Republican legislators and the governor are fighting among themselves, over a she-said/she-didn't-say issue. The Capitol Times (subscription only) has a detailed description of the fight.

Antenori and some other R Senators (Michelle Reagan? Sylvia Allen?) were reluctant to oust Mathis, but they went along when they were "assured" by Brewer she would call a special session to schedule a vote to get rid of the redistricting commission so the Republicans could have their way with the maps without all those Democrats and Independents gumming up the works.

Brewer says she kinda told them she might call the session, but she didn't promise. Here's my favorite part. The reluctant Rs were fooled by the same tactic they love to use, which is to put the football in front of Charlie Brown, kinda promising to leave it there, then pulling it away at the last moment.

"But we believed you!" the spurned Republicans are wailing.

Now the complainers are accusing Brewer of stalling on the special session -- they want the deal done by November 30 -- before it's too late.

Children, children, please don't fight fight among yourselves.

Supreme Court to the Red Queen: No constitutional basis for removal of Colleen Mathis

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I am going to take a moment to say "I told you so!" The Red Queen makes her move:

Judge Ryan is making the same legal points I have made here: the determination of a violation of the Open Meeting law is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the governor and the legislature have no jurisdiction to determine a violation under the statute. That matter is presently before the Superior Court.

The mapping criteria of Prop. 106 as applied to "draft" maps is premature. The sufficiency of the final maps can be challenged in court, and will be.

But the AIRC is a quasi-legislative body that enjoys legislative privilege, a right established by the governor's court jester Lisa Hauser when she previously represented the AIRC. The mapping process is not subject to second guessing or interference from the legislature or the governor.

In other words, the conduct complained of is not grounds for removal.

Justice Hurwitz writing for the Arizona Supreme Court essentially says the same thing. Steve Muratore has the Court's order at The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting -- Supreme clarification:

[T]he Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in response to filings earlier this week from Gov. Brewer and House Speaker Andy Tobin. A brief summary follows.

The Court has received Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration, Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration, and the Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. After consideration, the Court decides as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will treat the Motion as an amicus brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, except insofar as the motion seeks clarification of the Order. As the Order notes, the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution. The Court further concluded that the issues presented are not political questions committed by the Constitution to the unreviewable discretion of the other branches of government.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying the Court’s November 17, 2011 Order as it concerns the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to Colleen Mathis. The Order states that the November 1, 2011 letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution. Respondents seek clarification whether the Court’s conclusion was based on the format of the November 1, 2011 letter, which stated that the Governor had determined that Mathis had “failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth in Arizona Constitution Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(14).”

The Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter constitutes her findings of grounds for the removal of Mathis. The Court’s conclusion that the letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” is based on the letter’s substance, not its format. The letter does not, as a matter of law, identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for removal. One ground identified in the Governor’s letter is a failure to conduct the commission’s business in meetings open to the public. The Constitution directs that “[w]here a quorum is present, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct business in meetings open to the public, with 48 or more hours public notice provided.” Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Pt. 2, § 1(12). The statutory Open Meeting Law defines “meeting” in terms of a gathering of a quorum, A.R.S. § 38-431(4), and it directs that all meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings and that legal action of Supreme Court Case No. CV-11-0313-SA public bodies shall occur in public meetings. Id. § 38-431.01(A). A failure to conduct the business of the commission in meetings open to the public must at least involve violations of these laws for it to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct.” (We do not decide whether the constitutional provision preempts any statutory Open Meeting Law requirements, an issue that is being litigated in another forum.) There is, however, no allegation of any non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission in the Governor’s October 26, 2011 letter or in the responses thereto. Nor does the Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter find that a non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission occurred.

With regard to preparing maps, the commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must “balance competing concerns” and “exercise discretion in choosing among potential adjustments to the grid map,” Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 587, 597 ¶ 28, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009), and the commission’s adoption of final maps is subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution’s procedural andsubstantive requirements. Id. at 596 ¶ 24, 208 P.3d at 685. The Governor’s disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal.

As noted in the Order, the Court in due course will issue an opinion more fully detailing its reasoning in this matter.

Got that? The two grounds cited by the Red Queen for removal of Colleen Mathis, (1) a violation of the Open Meeting law and (2) her subjective view that the AIRC did not comply with the mapping criteria of Prop. 106, do not AS A MATTER OF LAW state grounds for removal for “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office.” In other words, the Red Queen and the Senate Star Chamber engaged in a politically motivated witch hunt without any legal justification.

Tea-Publicans and their sycophants in the media have been trying to convince the public that this was just a procedural error and that they only need to follow the proper procedure to remove Mathis. While the lack of procedural due process afforded to Colleen Mathis will certainly be part of the Court's opinion, the Court has clarified that its decision is based upon substantive law -- there was no constitutional basis for removal.

So how are the corporate media villagers who carry water for the GOP reporting this today? The Red Queen's sycophant Howard Fischer at Capitol Media Services reports Court blocks Brewer from trying again to fire redistricting chair - East Valley Tribune:

The Arizona Supreme Court late Wednesday effectively blocked Gov. Jan Brewer from once again trying to fire the chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission, at least not for the reasons the governor cited the first time around.

In a special order, the justices said Brewer provided no evidence that there were three or more members of the five-member commission meeting together at the same time. Justice Andrew Hurwitz, explaining the order, said that means there was no violation of either the state's Open Meeting Law or a separate constitutional provision requiring commission meetings be open, one of the two grounds that the governor cited in ousting Colleen Mathis.

Hurwitz also said Brewer was on no firmer ground in saying that Mathis violated constitutional requirements in the way she led the commission to craft maps for the state's nine congressional districts. Brewer charged that the panel paid too much attention to creating politically competitive districts while ignoring a requirement to keep "communities of interest'' together.

"The commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must balance competing concerns and exercising discretion'' in adjusting the maps, Hurwitz wrote.

Anyway, he pointed out, the maps that the governor contends are illegal are just drafts.

* * *

"The governor's disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the (initial) grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal,'' Hurwitz wrote.

In the version of this report which appears in the Arizona Daily Star, Brewer rebuffed again in map quarrel, Fischer adds "Brewer will huddle with her lawyers to see if there is any path Brewer can take to oust Mathis that the justices will find legal, her press aide Matthew Benson said."

Media villager idiot! The Court has made it abundantly clear that you have no substantive legal grounds for removal and is telling you to cease and desist. Game over!

The Arizona Republic reports State's high court rebuffs Brewer's request:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer failed to provide a constitutional reason for removing the chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission, the state Supreme Court said Wednesday.

Late Wednesday, the court did just that, saying the governor had not been able to "identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for (Mathis') removal."

* * *

The order also punched holes in the hopes of some GOP lawmakers, who believed the governor's letter simply needed to be written better and the removal would stick.

* * *

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said Brewer should again oust Mathis, calling the Supreme Court's ruling "pathetic." He also said he would support a special session to either repeal or reform the voter-approved initiative that created the five-member commission, which is charged with drawing new legislative and congressional boundaries for the next decade.

Brewer has been noncommittal on a session, which would have to happen by Wednesday to get on the Feb. 28 ballot, as many Republican lawmakers want. Nor was the governor certain immediately Wednesday what, if anything, she would do next.

"The governor and her legal team will be studying this decision," Benson said.

* * *

Jean-Jacques Cabou, an attorney for the redistricting commission, said the high court made it clear there are constitutional limits on the governor's power.

"On the eve of Thanksgiving, I think every Arizonan should be thankful for that," Cabou said.

Oddly, the Arizona Capitol Times does not feature a report on the court's order but rather Senate Republicans say Brewer broke commitment on IRC ballot referral - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

A top Senate Republican staffer says Gov. Jan Brewer broke a commitment that she would call lawmakers back to the Capitol for another special session so they could ask voters to end the Independent Redistricting Commission and put redistricting back in the hands of the Legislature.

Senate Majority Chief of Staff Wendy Baldo said Brewer made the commitment on Oct. 31, the day before the governor called a special session to remove Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in order to secure the 20 Senate votes needed for her removal.

Now, Baldo said, the governor’s aides are telling legislative leaders that Brewer wants to see the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion on its reinstatement of Mathis before moving forward with another special session.

Several Republican senators backed Baldo’s version, but the Governor’s Office and the top House Republican say that’s not what happened.

Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson “flatly” denied the accusation.

“The governor pledged to keep an open mind about the potential of a special session on Proposition 106 (the ballot measure that created the IRC), but at no time did she commit to carrying out a repeal,” Benson said.

And House Speaker Andy Tobin, one of the meeting’s participants, said the governor said she would consider asking lawmakers to call a special election for a repeal, but never pledged she would do so in exchange for the Senate supporting her removal of Mathis.

“The governor did not commit to a (ballot measure). She was open to it, but she did not commit,” Tobin said.

* * *

Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said he wouldn’t have voted for Mathis’ removal without a commitment from Brewer to reconvene the Legislature to put Prop. 106 back on the ballot, and added that he believes one or two other senators might have withheld their support as well. During the lead-up to the Nov. 1 special session that resulted in Mathis’ ouster, Antenori was agitating for a ballot referral, saying it was too late to remove Mathis.

“I was promised by leadership at the time and several other folks that were in the room when the governor made the commitment that she was going to do it,” Antenori said. “The way it was construed to me by Russell was that he told her he doesn’t have the votes unless she does the special session.”

Sen. Michele Reagan said Pearce told the caucus that Brewer had made a commitment on a special session for the Prop. 106 repeal, and that she believes that was the deciding factor in convincing a couple of senators to remove the chairwoman.

“There were a couple folks (for whom) that (pledge) was part of what they needed to see happen before they could commit,” said Reagan, R-Scottsdale. “It was common knowledge that that was the deal that was made.”

Sen. Sylvia Allen said Pearce told her that Brewer had pledged to bring lawmakers back to the Capitol for the repeal, and she was upset that the governor did not appear to be following through on it. “That’s what we were told, that she had made that commitment,” said Allen, R-Snowflake.

Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, also said Pearce told her that he had a commitment from the governor, though she said she understood why Brewer hadn’t yet called a special session. “Nobody wants to pull the trigger until we know what we’re doing and what we can do to remedy this problem,” Klein said.

Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear there is no constitutional basis for removal of Colleen Mathis, this Tea-Publican attempt to subvert the will of Arizona's voters by referring Prop. 106 to the ballot at the Republican Presidential Preference Primary election, essentially rigging the vote for repeal, should also be abandoned. Tea-Publicans have abused their power enough.

Every one of these Tea-Publican tyrants need to be kicked out of office in 2012, and the Red Queen recalled. Call to Action: Recall the Red Queen!

Will the GOP's 'new math' lead to a brokered convention?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Something new I learned while researching the GOP primary rules: the GOP has adopted "new math" for the 2012 primary election which could result in a brokered GOP convention for the first time in decades. Howard Megdal writing at Salon explains, The GOP needs a brokered convention:

[A]ll of the polls and pronouncements have overlooked the most popular choice for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination: no one. As Republicans make their way toward their quadrennial meeting in Tampa, Fla., which opens on Aug. 27, 2012, the lack of consensus may be building toward a historical surprise: a brokered convention.

* * *

[A] combination of the lack of strength within the current field, the inclinations of current GOP primary voters, the recently changed 2012 GOP rules, and even the best interests of the party itself all point to a strong possibility that there will be no presumptive nominee ahead of the convention.

* * *

Romney remains stuck at about 25 percent in the polls, meaning three out of four Republicans reject him. With six weeks to go, Romney is running out of time to convince the voters to fall for him, and not for lack of trying.

* * *

Less noticed, but no less important, is the new GOP voting system, which is set up for early primary and caucus states to vote first, followed by all other proportionally allocated delegate states next. From April 1 on, the winner-take-all primary and caucus states will vote. That means a weak front-runner can earn victories in early states without taking a commanding share of that state’s delegates, while several challengers can lose, but still rack up a decent delegate total.

* * *

For the very earliest states, this was true in 2008 too. The early primaries and caucuses allocated delegates proportionally, so winning them meant less in terms of amassing convention delegates, and more in terms of building a sense of momentum for the next round of voting in states that were nearly all winner-take-all. For example, McCain’s 5-point win over Romney in New Hampshire on Jan. 8, 2008, yielded only a 7-4 delegate edge. But his victories later that month in South Carolina by 3 points and Florida by 5 points captured 75 of the two states’ combined 81 delegates.

No such mechanism exists for any candidate in the 2012 race. Thanks to the new GOP rule, any primary or caucus held before April 1 must allocate delegates proportionally. So when McCain won nine of 21 states on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), with more than 50 percent of the vote in just three of them, the winner-take-all system gave him 608 of the 1,081 delegates at stake on the day. That meant total delegate haul — more than 56 percent of those available — was greater than his share of the vote in any single state that day. It also meant he received more than 57 percent of the delegates he’d need to be nominated in a single day. The result? Mitt Romney quickly called it quits, while Mike Huckabee continued on, but without any real attacks on McCain. The GOP race was over on Feb. 5.

This year will be different. The first winner-take-all primaries are Maryland, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., on April 3. That means 1,163 of 2,380 delegates will be selected before a single winner-take-all primary is held.

The mathematical implications are stark. Take Missouri, for example, which votes on March 17, 2012, meaning its delegate will be allocated proportionally.  Back in 2008, Missouri was winner-take-all. On the GOP side, John McCain edged Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in a tight three-way contest, 33 percent to 32 percent to 29 percent. Despite the narrow win, McCain took all 58 of Missouri’s delegates.

Fast forward to 2012. If Mitt Romney performs as well in Missouri as McCain did in 2008, a big if, he would gain fewer than 20 delegates from the state. More to the point, the candidates collectively known as “Not Mitt Romney” would gain 38, making Not Mitt Romney the big winner.

But Not Mitt Romney won’t be on the ballot, right? Well, yes and no. Several candidates who aren’t Mitt Romney are likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states. If a majority of the party agrees on nothing more than Not Mitt Romney, the real Mitt Romey cannot enter April with a majority of delegates. If Romney is able to climb to even 30 percent nationally in the pre-April states — something he hasn’t done in a single national poll — and wins a corresponding percentage of the vote, he would still have only 349 delegates. That means he would need to capture 868 of the 1,217 winner-take-all delegates to capture the nomination through the primary process. His only hope is that the other candidates have dropped out.

But why should they? The Not Mitt Romney candidates would need to win just 350 delegates after April 1 to deny him a majority of delegates. How Romney avoids that fate is even less clear. Even he wins every state in the Northeast and the West where he is strongest, he still has a big challenge.

Romney is a tough sell in the South and the Midwest. [West Virginia (31 delegates, May 8); North Carolina (66 delegates, May 8); Nebraska (35 delegates, May 15); and Ohio (66 delegates, June 12)] alone represent 187 of the 350 the Stop Romney forces will need — again, assuming Romney can even manage 30 percent of the vote through March 31.

There will be another 386 delegates chosen by voters in seven states: Wisconsin (42 delegates, April 3), Indiana (46 delegates, May 8), Arkansas (36 delegates, May 22), Kentucky (36 delegates, May 22), South Dakota (28 delegates, June 5) and Montana (26 delegates, June 5), and California (172 delegates, on June 5) where he trails Gingrich. The Not Mitt Romney forces would only need to win 163 (42 percent) to deny Romney a first ballot victory.

And, if they do, why exactly would the party leaders step in to save Romney’s nomination? Rather than settle for a nominee incapable of generating enthusiasm, they could use the convention to find a candidate more in tune with the Republican voters.

The GOP leadership and the rank and file would have the opportunity to nominate a compromise candidate who hasn’t been in the race at all.

Megdal's conclusions:

- The Republicans would go into the general election with a sense of dynamism, not disappointment.

- Democrats would face a fresh conservative face who would receive just two months of scrutiny before Election Day.

- A brokered convention in Tampa is shaping up to be the GOP’s best-case scenario.

Willard 'Mittens' Romney would have turned away his own immigrant father

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

First, a bit of history...

Willard "Mittens" Romney is the son of George Wilcken Romney, an immigrant from Mexico. You read that right.

George W. Romney's grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children because of the federal government's opposition to polygamy. His maternal grandfather was Helaman Pratt (1846–1909), who presided over the Mormon mission in Mexico City before moving to the state of Chihuahua and who was the son of original Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt (1807–1857).

George W. Romney's parents were American citizens Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926); they married in 1895 in Mexico and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua (one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico) where George Wilcken Romney was born on July 8, 1907.

The Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910 and the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders, including "Red Flaggers" Pascual Orozco and José Inés Salazar. Young George heard the sound of distant gunfire and saw rebels walking through the village streets. The Romney family fled and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. George W. Romney would later say, "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century."

The Romney family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas for a few months before moving to Los Angeles, California, where Gaskell Romney worked as a carpenter. In kindergarten there, other children mocked George W. Romney's national origin by calling him "Mex."

That was the early childhood of Willard "Mittens" Romney's father, George W. Romney, an immigrant from Mexico. You would think the life experience of his own father would have had a profound impact upon the opinions and sensitivity of Willard "Mittens" Romney to the issue of immigration, particularly with respect to immigration from Mexico. And you would be wrong.

During last night's episode of "Survivor - GOP Presidential Primary," Willard "Mittens" Romney took a hard-line position on immigration which would have turned away his own immigrant father, and no less stigmatize and demonize him than did his father's kindergarten classmates so many years ago.

From the DNC:

“Mitt Romney on Immigration. Dishonest. To the Extreme.”

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney’s extreme anti-immigrant views were on clear display – so much so that Mitt Romney has now assumed the mantle as the most extreme, right wing presidential candidate on the issue of immigration ever.  Romney’s round them up and throw them out anti-immigrant views use to the be the fare of far right wing gadfly candidates like Tom Tancredo, but no more.  Romney once again went to the far right of every other Republican presidential candidate, refusing to agree with others on the stage that tearing apart families is wrong or that we shouldn't implement an extreme and inhumane immigration policy. This kind of attitude is harmful to our country, our nation’s families, and our standing in the world. It certainly runs counter to what we stand for and doesn’t reflect our values as Americans.

What makes matters even worse is - as is as typical of Mitt Romney - he refuses to level with the American people and won't say what he would actually do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country today.  His spokesman was asked seven times in an interview last night what he would do and he refused to address the issue given repeated opportunities – and instead he attacked the questioner LINK.

This is just another dishonest attempt by Mitt Romney to play politics on an issue to further his political ambitions rather than leveling with the American people about the real challenges we face in addressing this issue.  Romney's immigration stance coupled with a string of dishonest and deceitful statements and campaign tactics just goes to show Mitt Romney will say or do anything - no matter how extreme or outrageous - to get elected. After all, he's running for office, for Pete's sake.

# # #

Tell Newt he's nuts

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

AFSCME responds to Newt Gingrich's contention that child labor laws are "truly stupid" and that school janitors should be fired and poor kids hired to clean up after their own classmates with this ad.

Newt Gingrich has come out in favor of child labor before. In 1994 he suggested that children on welfare be shipped off to orphanages. His model? The 1938 workhouse film Boys Town.

Tag line of the ad: "Tell him he's nuts."

Stay tuned

by David Safier

Arizona's new education empowerment accounts -- vouchers by another name, with a new twist to make them even more insidious -- will be tested in court Monday. The lawsuit comes from the Arizona School Boards Association. The law is the Goldwater Institute's baby.

I don't know what the arguments against the vouchers will be. Pure vouchers have been struck down in Arizona, mainly because they go to support religious education (70% to 80% of private schools here and across the nation are religious schools). The new law puts the money in "savings accounts" for parents to spend on their children's educations rather than the money going straight from government coffers to the schools. To me, that's a distinction without a difference. We'll see what the court thinks.

Geezus! Willard 'Mittens' Romney even lies about his own name!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Geezus! Willard "Mittens" Romney lies so much he even lies about his own name!

Did you catch this during last night's episode of "Survivor - GOP Presidential Primary"?

Responding to Wolf Blitzer’s self-introduction — in which Wolf said “and yes, that is my real name” — Romney began: “I’m Mitt Romney — and yes Wolf, that’s also my first name.”

Except Romney’s first name is “Willard,” and “Mitt” is his middle name.

Hey birthers! Demand that Willard "Mittens" Romney produce his birth certificate to prove it!

Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, a 'Grover groupie' killed the 'super committee'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Let's give credit where credit is due. Dana Milbank reports that our Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, a "Grover groupie" killed the "super committee." Jon Kyl’s search-and-destroy mission - The Washington Post:

Jon Kyl is different from you and me.

In the days following Hurricane Katrina, the nation was reeling over the death and destruction in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. But Kyl, now the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, saw opportunity: According to a voice-mail recording left at the time by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Kyl and Sessions were hoping to find a business owner killed in the storm so they could use that in their campaign to repeal the estate tax.

It was vintage Kyl: cold and ruthless.

So when the Arizonan was named as one of six Republicans on the debt super committee, Democrats feared the worst — and they got what they feared. It exaggerates little to say that Kyl thwarted agreement almost singlehandedly. While some Republicans on the panel — notably Reps. Dave Camp and Fred Upton — were, with House Speaker John Boehner’s blessing, prepared to strike a deal, Kyl rallied resistance with his usual table-pounding tirades.

The tragedy here is that Kyl, who has announced his retirement at the end of his term, could have risen above political pressures to strike an agreement to right the nation’s finances for a generation. Boehner’s House Republicans, aware that voters will hold them to account for inaction, were willing to deal. But Kyl’s Senate Republicans, hoping voters will evict the Democratic majority in the Senate, had no such incentive.

The sabotage began on the very first day the supercommittee met. While other members from both parties spoke optimistically about the need to put everything on the table, Kyl gave a gloomy opening statement. “I think a dose of realism is called for here,” he said. That same day, he went to a luncheon organized by conservative think tanks and threatened to walk (“I’m off the committee”) if there were further defense cuts.

When Democrats floated their proposal combining tax increases and spending cuts,Kyl rejected it out of hand, citing Republicans’ pledge to activist Grover Norquist not to raise taxes. Kyl’s constant invocation of the Norquist pledge provoked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to snap at Kyl during a private meeting: “What is this, high school?”

Kyl’s defenders say his motives were pure because he had every incentive for the supercommittee to succeed: He never has to face voters again and he desperately wanted to avoid the automatic Pentagon cuts that now loom. But there’s little doubt that he was doing Norquist’s bidding in killing any notion of higher taxes.

Norquist, who worked to defeat a compromise, brags about his control over Kyl. When Kyl made remarks in May that appeared to leave open the possibility of tax increases, Norquist called Kyl and adopted “the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation,” Politico reported. Norquist boasted to the publication that, after he upbraided Kyl, the senator “went down on the floor and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!”

While other supercommittee members on both sides searched for a grand bargain, Kyl countered with suggestions that they focus on small items, such as selling off federal property. On Monday, when Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) made his last-ditch effort to salvage a deal, observers knew the effort was going nowhere for one simple reason: Kyl was in the room. He divided his time between the “negotiations” and barbed interviews with TV networks: “Can I make a point? . . . Your job isn’t to convince me. . . . Let me make this point to you. . . . Let me just finish my sentence.”

Kyl had demonstrated his distaste for negotiation before. In June, he joined House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in walking out of budget talks with Vice President Biden. He had also displayed his disdain for fellow Republicans who were willing to negotiate. During the health-care debate, when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was negotiating with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Kyl went on TV and said Grassley “has been given no authority to negotiate anything.” Amid hints that GOP leaders might punish Grassley by denying him the top Republican slot on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley reportedly told colleagues: “Maybe I should just go home and ride my tractor.”

“Walking napalm” is how one Democratic aide involved in the supercommittee described Kyl this week. And if the senator makes some mistakes as he burns down the village — well, that’s just a cost of doing business. Earlier this year, when Kyl was leading an effort to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, he claimed on the Senate floor that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” The actual number is 3 percent. An aide to Kyl explained: “His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

As Kyl leaves the Senate, he will be remembered as a lawmaker who intended to be not factual but destructive.

This embarrassment to Arizona cannot leave office soon enough. And there should be no celebrations for his years of "disservice" to Arizona and America. He should leave office disgraced.

The Mathis ouster has not been kind to Brewer's numbers

by David Safier

An Arizona poll indicates the state isn't happy with Brewer's attempts to subvert the Redistricting Commission.

The poll of 500 Arizonans, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling from Nov. 17-20, showed that 43 percent opposed Mathis’ removal, 31 percent supported it and 26 percent had no opinion.

When you break that down by party, it looks even worse for the Red Queen. Look at the Independent numbers.

• Democrats: 72% opposed
• Republicans: 54% support (it doesn't say how many were opposed and how many had no opinion)
• Independents: 41% opposed, 19% support, 40% no opinion.

The latest poll on Brewer's approval has her at 42% approval, 49% disapproval. Those aren't truly terrible numbers, but they're a slip from the 52-30 approve/disapprove split right after she signed SB1070.

Randy Parraz says he's gotten hundreds of people already signing up to volunteer at Citizens for a Better Arizona today. He needs 5,000 before he's willing to undertake a Recall Brewer campaign. This could be our moment.

Great moments in art and pepper spray

by David Safier

We have a new Zelig: Officer Pepper Spray. (h/t to Warren Richards)

 

Good news from Texas and Oregon

by David Safier

A brief break from "Ain't it awful!" news to relate a couple of positive items.

1. From Texas: Abstinence only education is on the wane. "In a state that has long encouraged an abstinence-only approach to sex education, the number of Texas school districts teaching students about contraception along with abstinence has surged in the last three years." The number of Texas districts teaching "abstinence-plus" has gone from 3.6% three years ago to more than 25% of districts today.
2. From Oregon: "Gov. John Kitzhaber has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty for the remainder of his term, saying he's morally opposed to the capital punishment and has long regretted allowing two men to be executed in the 1990s."

Willard 'Mittens' Romney's first ad a deliberate lie, campaign confirms it

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Is Willard "Mittens" Romney engaging in a form of Lying for the Lord? ("Lying for the Lord" is a tenet of the Mormon faith that gives Mormons the "right to lie," so long as it's a lie to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion). Mittens apparently has expanded upon this tenent to include running for president of the United States. I wonder what the LDS elders would have to say about this.

Greg Sargent writes, Romney camp: Misrepresenting opponent’s words is completely fair game - The Plum Line:

the Romney campaign is airing an ad in New Hampshire that plucks Obama’s words out of context in a comically dishonest way. Obama is shown seeming to acknowledge that talking about the economy is a political loser for him, when in reality, he was quoting a John McCain adviser making that claim. The ad is now being widely pilloried as false.

Now CBS News has gotten a new response from the Romney camp justifying the ad:

Romney senior New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath tells CBS News the ad is “exactly what we want.”

“They were using McCain’s words to make fun of McCain. And we’re using the exact same technique,” he said.

Pressed on whether it was unfair to lop off the top of Mr. Obama’s comments — which would show the president was quoting the McCain camp — Rath said, “He did say the words. That’s his voice.”

He then suggesting that the more people discuss the ad, the better it is for the Romney campaign.

This is a truly remarkable response. The Romney camp is explicitly saying it’s totally fair game to take an opponent’s words out of context in a way that completely changes their meaning, simply because the actual words in question did come out of the speaker’s mouth. As many have noted today, the Romney ad’s decontextualizing of Obama’s words is so egregious that it amounts to a lie. Yet here a Romney adviser is claiming that this is fair game, because he said those words.

Today Think Progress released a new video lampooning the Romney ad with footage of Romney himself torn out of context. It shows Romney saying things like “we should just raise everybody’s taxes,” and “there’s nothing unique about the United States.” Obviously Romney was really saying the opposite of those things. But as Think Progress notes, those depictions are “accurate, according to the Romney standard of accuracy.”

This was meant as a joke. But now a Romney adviser has confirmed that this is, in fact, the Romney standard of accuracy.

* * *

One other point. As Jed Lewison notes today, it won’t matter that Romney’s ad is broadcasting a blatant lie, because media outlets have not been willing to come right out and call Romney a liar. Here you have a Romney adviser basically confirming this, claiming that the media attention to the ad is a positive. One wonders whether this open and explicit admission that the Romney camp is using the media will be enough to prompt more aggressive coverage of its pattern of mendacity.

Steve Benen piles on at the Political Animal - ‘That’s his voice’:

To briefly recap, Mitt Romney’s very first television ad of the 2012 campaign pushes a blatant, shameless lie. In 2008, a month before the president was elected, then-candidate Obama told voters, “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’” In Romney’s new attack ad, viewers only see part of the quote: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

It’s a cheap, deceitful move, suggesting Romney wants to get his general-election strategy off to as dishonorable a start as possible. And what’s the Republican campaign’s response? It’s a doozy.

Romney senior New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath tells CBS News the ad is “exactly what we want.” […]

Pressed on whether it was unfair to lop off the top of Mr. Obama’s comments — which would show the president was quoting the McCain camp — Rath said, “He did say the words. That’s his voice.” 

There’s no way around this — the argument is just blisteringly stupid. Yes, Obama said those words, and yes, that’s the president’s voice, but the whole point of the controversy is that Romney wrenched the words from context, changing the meaning and deceiving the public.

* * *

ABC News’ Jake Tapper said of Romney’s ad, “[I]t’s not just misleading. It’s TV-station-refuse-to-air-it-misleading.”

Agreed. Romney’s willingness to lie to voters raises important questions about his integrity, but the question now becomes whether television stations will participate in the lie by airing a spot that’s proven to be deceptive.

Mitten's first TV ad of the 2012 presidential campaign sparked immediate denunciations Monday night from President Obama's reelection campaign, which rightly complained that the ad was "a deceitful and dishonest attack." Obama Campaign Blasts Romney's First TV Ad As 'Deceitful':

Obama's reelection campaign spokesman Ben Labolt called the Romney ad "a deceitful and dishonest attack."

"While the President brought us back from the brink of another depression and is fighting everyday to restore economic security for the middle class, Mitt Romney opposes the President's plan to create 2 million jobs and instead proposes a return to the same economic policies that led to the recession," Labolt said in an email to The Huffington Post.

When asked by The Huffington Post,  Romney's communications director Gail Gitcho maintained the ad was not out of bounds. "We are using candidate Obama's 2008 campaign tactic against him," Gitcho said in an e-mail.

So this shameless shape-shifter intends to lie his way to the White House. Mittens Romney is entirely lacking character. He does not deserve to be elected a hall monitor at Baine Capital let alone president of the United States.

Unbalanced "balanced coverage" argues against its own premise

by David Safier

It's both Democrats' and Republicans' fault the supercommittee ended in gridlock. I know it's true, because the media tells me so.

Take the AP analysis in the Star:

End to debt gridlock is nowhere in sight

See, Republicans want lower taxes, which would mean cutting social programs, and Democrats want to protect social programs. The Republicans refuse to raise anyone's taxes, even the rich, while the Democrats refuse to consider cuts in . . . Wait a minute. The Democrats said they would accept some cuts if it was part of a package which included higher taxes on millionaires. They actually presented a package containing the two approaches.

So are both parties at fault here?

The problem, according to the AP analysis, is, both parties are afraid to alienate their activists. So both R and D activists must be making similarly unreasonable demands, right?

Republican lawmakers respond to activists who overwhelmingly oppose higher taxes. And Democrats answer to activists who will tolerate no nicks in Medicare, Social Security and other programs without steeper taxes on the wealthy.

Just a sec. Let me read that passage one more time. It looks like it says the R activists are my-way-or-the-highway types. Absolutely no new taxes, no way, no how. But the D activists say they'll consider cuts in programs like Medicare and Social Security if they're accompanied by a tax hike on the rich.

One side says Absolutely No Compromise. The other side says Compromise. That's not my interpretation. That's what it says in the article. The Rs guaranteed the supercommittee would fail if the Ds didn't give up everything, and the Ds were willing to make a deal if it split the difference between the two.

The fail is on the Republican side. End of story. Those are the facts in the AP analysis. Unfortunately, the writer appears to be logic impaired, like most of the "balanced coverage" media.