From Monks to Mailmen: Democrat Fundraising 101

From Monks to Mailmen: Democrat Fundraising 101
By Frank Antenori
August 28, 2007

Lesson 1: “No Controlling Legal Authority”

During the 1996 campaign, Vice President Gore made forty-five money-raising phone calls from his White House office. Gore claimed that there was "no controlling legal authority" that prohibited his shaking down donors from the Vice President’s office, although the statute that bans solicitations in and from federal offices, the Pendleton Act, had been on the books since 1883.

Did he think the law lapsed once he moved into the West Wing or did Al Gore pioneer the Cheney defense by claiming his office wasn’t part of the Federal Government, long before Cheney's wasn’t part of the Executive Branch?

Of course Janet Reno's Justice Department sided with Gore, on the grounds that all his calls had been made to raise “soft” money for the DNC not “hard” money for Clinton-Gore. But when leaked notes of a 1995 fundraising powwow in the White House Map Room showed that both hard and soft money was to be raised; that Gore volunteered to make calls from his office; and that he followed the discussions closely, Gore denied having been at the meeting.

Then when Secret Service records showed Gore was actually present, Gore said he must have missed the “sexy parts” since he took so many bathroom breaks on account of all the iced tea he drank that day.

Janet Reno once again came to the rescue, deciding there was only "weak circumstantial evidence" that Gore violated Federal Law. Either she was blatantly covering up a crime or was too stupid to see what was happening in front of her nose.

And to think that Alberto Gonzales gets run out of town on a rail for his pathetic Senate testimony where he made a lame excuse for legally firing U.S. attorneys and Janet Reno covers up actual crimes and gets nothing but R-E-S-P-E-C-T from the media for her decision.

Lesson 2: Poor Monks = Big Money

In April 1996, Al Gore made a fundraising visit to the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif. The DNC got $65,000 and Clinton-Gore got $35,000 in illegal contributions "donated" by monks and nuns who had taken vows of poverty.

When the media questioned the visit, Gore described it as "community outreach" - Again Gore didn't conclude, from the robes and the sign that read “Buddhist Temple”, that he might be in a religious establishment prohibited, by law, from making campaign contributions to parties or candidates. Maybe Gore drank too much green tea and had to pee again while the checks were being written.

Once again Janet Reno said no laws were broken by then VP Gore but after three of the nuns testified to Congress in 1998 that the temple reimbursed them and others for $55,000 in donations made to the DNC and Clinton-Gore, Reno was forced to investigate.

Rather than indict soon to be Presidential Candidate Al Gore of violating federal campaign finance laws, conspiracy and perjury, the Reno Justice Department drummed up six felony counts against Maria Hsia, a Taiwanese-born immigration consultant and Democratic fundraiser who steered Gore through his temple visit.

A Clinton appointed Judge later dismissed five of the six felony counts letting the conspiracy charge stand. Hsia was later sentenced by another Clinton appointee to 90 days home detention and three years probation.

Lesson 3: If it worked for Hubby it’ll work for me

In today’s Wall Street Journal, probably the last decent newspaper left in the country, is a headline: Big Source of Clinton's Cash Is an Unlikely Address

In the article, Journal reporter Brody Mullins brings attention to another creative Clinton fundraising technique: Shake down the Mailman!

Mullins discovered an address on the FEC website that is one of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton. The address, 41 Shelbourne Ave. in San Francisco, a tiny, 1280 sq ft, lime-green bungalow, owned by 64-year-old U.S. postal worker William Paw.


Paw, whose salary is less than $49,000 a year and lives with his unemployed wife have somehow managed to donate over $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. That includes $45,000 donated to Hillary for her Senate and Presidential campaign funds.

The couple's four grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund. All six Paws have contributed “the Max” of $4,600 to Hillary’s Presidential campaign.

To add to the “mystery” the Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records.

Mr. Hsu just happens to be one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, said the two-year pattern of donations (by the Paws and Hue) justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions.

"There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said.

Don’t you just love the hypocrisy?

Of course Clinton Inc. will probably protect Hillary from any air of illegal activity. Hiding in the bathroom seemed to work for Gore; maybe Hillary should start drinking tea. I can see Hillary running for the bathroom now! Run Hillary Run!

Frank Antenori is a retired Special Forces Soldier and a former candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress in Congressional District Eight.

Maricopa consultant for Southern Arizona race?

We had heard that Tim Bee might be retaining the services of Nathan Sproul. Bee was warned by persons in Maricopa County and even some locals not to use Sproul or to at least minimize his role. We were not going to cover the issue as it did not seem to be big news to us and we generally like Bee as a person and as an elected official. There does seen to be some friction between the state party and Nathan but that is the last thing we want to get involved in.

Last Friday Rum, Romanism and Rebellion picked up on the fact that Garrick Taylor seemed to now be working for Tim Bee. Tedski did not make the link to Sproul in his post but the comments certainly
did.

On Saturday Michael at Blog for Arizona covered the story but made a much bigger deal about the link to Nathan Sproul. Again we do not want to get involved in a dispute between different Republican factions from Maricopa County but we are perplexed as to why Senator Bee would have anything to do with Sproul. Rightly or wrongly Nathan has a certain reputation. Bee has a spotless record so it is surprising that he could not find some local talent or an out of state professional.

There are other reasons to be concerned about this development. Sproul and Associates is working for Wake Up Arizona! The group has threatened to oppose some of Bee’s fellow Republican legislators. We cannot imagine that will help Bee work with his colleagues while employing a firm trying to unseat them. Will Nathan continue his efforts to undermine the state party? Bee was probably not counting on the state party to win but why hire someone who is working against the chairman? Bee has enjoyed wide Republican support within CD-8 but our conversations reveal that Sproul makes conservative queasy. Why is a long-time Southern Arizonan like Bee going with an out of town guy, and from Maricopa County no less?

The biggest question about Sproul’s involvement is his win/loss record. Best we can tell it is pretty poor.

Tedski was polite in his opening pitch. We do not expect that to continue as voting day approaches. He is a Gabby fan and will make the most of this association. Michael was true to form and will happily continue the attack. Jim Nintzel at Tucson Weekly is probably licking his chops at this gift.

We are still planning on voting for Bee but if you are looking for an explanation of their choice in campaign consultants you will need to look elsewhere.

Alberto Gonzales' Eventuality Arrives

We said it was just a matter of time and the time has come. Alberto Gonzales has turned in his resignation.

While Gonzales' many missteps contributed to his eventual need to resign, the unfortunate truth is the Democrats will get credit for flexing enough muscle to punish the President for exercising his right to appoint U.S. attorneys. And the Dems will use the Attorney General nomination process as another opportunity to grandstand. Consequently, the whole point of what was truly wrong in that office will be lost to more partisan politics.

It's interesting to hear the silence from GOP presidential candidates. CBS writer, David Miller, gives a useful analysis of why they are keeping mum:

So far, the leading Republican candidates haven't released statements on Gonzales' announcement. This doesn't imply they're fans of the departing attorney general — if they were, we would have seen press releases thanking Gonzales for his service. Rather, it points to the difficulties Republicans face in this election. Voters in their own party know they can't win with a candidate who sticks too closely to the president, yet polls show they still support Mr. Bush in large numbers. And supporting the president would hurt their electability among independent voters in the general election.

Zogby Validates Iowa Straw Poll

According to the latest Zogby Poll, Romney has captured the hearts of likely Iowa caucus goers while Giuliani and McCain continue to slip. While Romney jumped to 34%, Guilani lost 4% and McCain lost 12% since last May.

The Early Bird Gets ?

An interesting analysis on Rum, Romanism & Rebellion of the new Arizona presidential primary date now set at February 5th.

Cuba, the Next Health Care Paradise?

Today I listened to Canada's version of "All Things Considered" highlighting the inaugural speech given by Dr. Brian Day, the new chief of the Canadian Medical Association. In his speech, he said that the National Health Care Act that was "created when the Berlin Wall was being built" is outdated and needs to be revamped. Day backed his calls for change with studies showing Canada to be 30th in health care quality—the bottom of developed countries—and at the top in terms of costs. He said that the government wait list system causing people to wait months for tests and simple procedures was unacceptable to Canadians and the doctor shortage caused by the government system had to change. He also pointed out that 70% of the population had access to private care leaving the 30% without it forming a lower class of citizens. His calls for greater privatization were overwhelmingly supported by the association.

The fact that the Canadian system was a bad one has been well-known for decades by anyone living close to our northern neighbors. People waiting over a year for CAT scans and other common procedures seemed to end up in the USA when they decided it was either go to a private system or die.

So now where will Clinton, Obama, and Edwards turn when pushing their various forms of HillaryCare? Now that Canada admits its system is broken, will Cuba become the next health care paradise for Democrats?

Lunch with Trent Franks.

U.S. Congressman Trent Franks will be in town this Thursday, Aug. 23rd for a private lunch event and will give a briefing after the meal. Tickets for this special event are only $75 and will benefit the local Republican Party. To make reservations or ask questions please contact the Pima County Republican Party at hq@pimagop.org or 321-1492.

Congressman Franks was first elected to Congress in 2002 and serves on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. He was originally elected to the Arizona House of Representatives at the age of 27. Between his service in Congress and the Arizona House he helped found and served as the director of The Arizona Family Research Institute.

The congressman was last seen driving liberals up the wall with his unequivocal advocacy for conservative principles.

LD 30 Resolution Thanks Linda White

Yesterday, August 18th 2007, Precinct Committeewomen and Committeemen from Legislative District 30 met at the American Legion post on S. Houghton Road for their monthly meeting.

Under new business, former LD30 Chair Jim Coniglio raised a motion to honor the service of outgoing Pima County GOP Executive Director Linda White. A recommendation was made to adopt a resolution similar to the one approved by our fellow Republicans in LD26 earlier this month.

The motion was seconded by “Ike” Eisenhower.

LD30 Chairwoman Patti O’Berry then offered the following resolution to the quorum of 23 members present for a vote:

A VOTE OF THANKS AND SUPPORT FOR OUTGOING PIMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LINDA WHITE

WHEREAS, Linda White will no longer continue as the Executive Director of the Pima County Republican Party; and

WHEREAS, Linda has provided many years of tireless work and effort as a part of her duties in this position;

BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Republican Precinct Committeewomen and Committeemen of the Thirtieth Legislative District of Arizona, wish to thank Linda for her service, and express appreciation for representing us in other positions at district, county, and state level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we do offer a vote of confidence and support to Linda White in her remaining positions and any further endeavors that she chooses to commence.

Adopted this 18th day of August, 2007, at the Monthly Meeting of for the District Thirty Committeewomen and Committeemen of the Republican Party of Arizona.

The resolution was approved unanimously by the body.

Chairwoman Patti O’Berry directed the proceedings be recorded into the minutes of the meeting.


As directed,

Frank Antenori
LD30 Secretary Pro-Tem

You can't handle the Truth!

Do you remember the movie "A Few Good Men?" Mostly it is quite forgettable outside of the last few moments which gives us the Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!" speech. Nicholson's character is somehow "tricked" by a wily Tom Cruise to spill all of the beans of his military flavored corruption based on Cruise's superior sophistry.

Sometimes I get the feeling that there are many Democrats that believe that the same thing is going to happen this September when Gen. David Petraeus returns with his report on Iraq. Let me politely assure everybody that this will not be the case. In fact, I believe that Democrats are in for no small amount of trouble.

The biggest mistake people make when looking at the war is coming to the conclusion that most of America feels the way that they do about the conflict. This is a mistake made by both fervent supporters and detractors of the war. The truth is that no matter what your position is on the war, a majority of Americans do not agree in totality. Polling questions are far too narrow to adequately show the intricacies of how people are feeling about the war and under what circumstances they support or lose support for the entire operation. Because of this, what happens in September is very much up in the air, despite the gloom and doom that has taken place in the past year. Currently, I believe that there are three factors in play that are likely to change the paradigm that the war is viewed from once Petraeus gives his report.

1. If they ever had any moral autority on the war, Congressional Democrats have frittered it away. A recent Zogby poll shows that support for the way that Congress is handling the Iraq war has fallen to 3%. Now that is a combination, I'll admit, of people who don't like that Congress is trying to micromanage the war combined with those upset that Congress has not brought the troops home. But 3% is incredible. But there is cause for a lot of anger. Quite frankly the leadership of both Houses of Congress have not sought to do anything at all to help the war effort, or end it altogether. Instead, they have used it solely as a club to beat George Bush with, and that is all they ever intended to do.

Think about that for a second. These people have put themselves in a position of straddling a position that calls, on one hand, for poormouthing our soldiers' capability, conduct, and accomplishment, while on the other hand of never putting together a workable plan or coalition to draw down our forces or commitment. If Harry Reid truly believed the Surge was doomed to failure, he could have worked to prevent Petraeus's appointment. He did not, but rather waited until Petraeus got on the next plane to Iraq after confirmation and began to criticize and undercut him before he even touched ground.

The House has held symbolic vote after symbolic vote, but never did anything that actually put any real solutions into play or show courage in any way. Criticism without leadership is not patriotism.

Who on the Democratic side has any moral authority, not to mention intellectual facility to play Cruise to Petraeus's Nicholson?

Harry "The war is lost!" Reid
Jack "In cold blood!" Murtha?
Nancy Too busy to attend Petraeus briefing Pelosi
or perhaps,
Gabby "There are no terrorists in Iraq" Giffords.

There is not a single Democrat readily appearant to be up to the task of refuting anything Petraeus is going to report. The talent and depth of the current Democratic leadership and membership is just simply not there. You don't arrive at 3% by accident. Democrats are going to get rolled in John Roberts fashion.

2. Petraeus is going to return with clear and verifiable good news. Obviously I am not plugged in well enough to get direct reports, but there are others who are, and here is what those, whom you would expect to say differently, are saying:

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack think things are looking up. They are both spineless jellyfish, but knowledgeable jellyfish. They wouldn't have taken this shot over the bow unless they were relatively sure of measurable progress, so the fact that they made this statement is a pretty large positive indicator.

The UN is returning to Iraq.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (Democrat), who voted against the war in the first place, is coming out in support of the surge.

Even Dick Durbin is grudgingly admitting that the surge is working.

UPDATE- I forgot to mention Der Spiegel's surprising article. This publication is hardly pro war.

Now these are critics of the war. If you want to look for news from more friendly sources, it is abundant. My favorite is Micheal Yon who is far more deserving of a Pulitzer than most of the actual recipients in the last few decades. Keep in mind that Micheal is not a cheerleader by any means, but he is a friend of the soldier which is certainly a news angle we don't often get.

I don't doubt for a minute that evidence of Petraeus's plan working as outlined will be lacking come September.

3. America loves their soldiers. The "Far Left" (Not all Democrats, mind you, Sirocco) but large swaths of liberals have a huge problem with the military. They have for years. It is obvious, identifiable, and it is not going away. It is one of those stumbling blocks that allows Republicans, even when we are at out most incompetent, to keep any type of power. Remember Ollie North? He was in deep trouble, and by all accounts would probably still be in prison had he had the image and temperament of a Scooter Libby. Instead he showed up in dress uniform, took the oath, and proceeded to dismember the joint Congressional Committee. It didn't matter what was said, it was that damn photograph of him taking the oath that was the linchpin. Where I grew up there was a barbershop that even advertised "Ollie North haircuts." It was quite the opposite effect of "A Few Good Men."

Now lets place Petraeus in the same setting. He has committed no crime and has went out and did what many in congressional leadership told us was impossible. Now there will be a certain amount of goalpost moving (it's already starting) but how do you think he is going to focus group? How do you think those who attempt to henpeck and criticize him are going to come off? The congress that went after North was the superior in every way to what we will see lined up against Petraeus, and Petraeus is far superior to Oliver North. Democrats have put themselves in a bad position by belittling Petraeus and his mission and then by agreeing to this September briefing. And the more a 17% congress goes after a soldier, the worse things will get for Democrats. Again, America loves their soldiers, but they practically worship successful soldiers. After Bush is removed as the face of the current war and replaced by Petraeus, things will change dramatically.

And then who knows what will happen.

The Definition of Leadership...

Sonoran Alliance has an excellent post covering RNC Chairman Mel Martinez' criticisms of leading GOP presidential candidates. It's hard to understand such behavior coming from the national party leadership. I'm sure members of the RNC will clarify Mel's role and steer him toward supporting Republican candidates. It looks like Bruce Ash has already weighed in.

Some Say "It's Nuts"

MSNBC is reporting that the Census Bureau is asking for immigration officials to back off when the Bureau conducts its census in 2010. They don't want illegal aliens to skedaddle when census workers come knocking on the door since they are supposed to count non-citizens as well as citizens. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich) thinks “it’s nuts” referring to the Census Bureau's request for a break in enforcement. What's a bit odd here is that the process is used to determine the number of House members a state gets in Congress, so why non-citizens would be counted in the first place is difficult to fathom. A simple solution would be to count everybody but distinguish citizens from non-citizens for the apportionment. Strangely enough, that would take a change in the constitution, a bill Representative Miller is planning to introduce.

TUSD board sides with Paton.

The TUSD board voted 4-1 to have some kind of standards for speakers. The decision is an endorsement of the efforts of Representative Jonathan Paton to bring some sanity to student assemblies.

Michelle Malkin Talks 'Smack' on Illegal Alien Crime

Sanctuary Nation Or Sovereign Nation: It's Your Choice
By Michelle Malkin
August 15, 2007
Will the execution-style murder of three young students in Newark, N.J., finally turn the tide in the immigration enforcement debate? Will we at last abandon the deadly, chaotic, lawless sanctuary nation experiment and restore America's lost status as a sovereign nation under the rule of law?

The death of six innocent men and women and the injury of more than 1,000 at the hands of several illegal alien 1993 World Trade Center bombers wasn't enough to convince politicians in New York and across this country to end illegal alien sanctuary policies.

The death of nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children at the hands of the 9/11 jihadists who exploited our lax entrance and visa enforcement policies in 2001 wasn't enough.

The death of 10 innocent men and women in the Washington, D.C., area at the hands of an illegal alien sniper and his bloodthirsty mentor in 2002 wasn't enough.

But now we are in the heat of a presidential election cycle. The open-borders opportunists in immigration enforcement clothing are professing to see the light. With illegal alien murder suspect Jose Carranza and his alleged MS-13 gang-banging boy helpers who are being sought in the brutal Newark murder case dominating the news on the Eastern seaboard, politicians can't find a camera fast enough to condemn the very sanctuary policies they promoted and tolerated for decades -- sanctuary policies I've highlighted for years in this column. more

Frankly, Not Franking

Ann Day has sent her frugal, but nicely done first edition newsletter with articles on all the wonderful things happening in Pima County. Taking advantage of our high tech world, Ann elected to send the newsletter by email thereby saving somebody a chunk of change. At least, that's how I got it.

As frugal as it is to email the newsletter, one story in the mailer seemed to yank my wallet from my back pocket as I read it. Here's the article:
Pima County’s Conservation Plan a Model for Smart Growth
In 2004, Pima County voters approved a $174 million bond program to purchase more land for planning and conservation purposes. To date, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has used $51.3 million of that to purchase 21,400 acres, bringing total conservation lands in Pima County to more than 77,000 acres throughout the county.

Let's see...only 13.9% of all land in Pima County is privately owned. The government (including reservations) has all the rest, but it's not enough. So we voted to pay extra taxes well into the future for what? So the government can use our money to buy more land from us so that it can't be developed thereby reducing revenue to the county and requiring higher taxes that would give the government more money with which to buy more land from us that so that it can't be developed...

I guess we're now down to 13.8% and counting. Has anyone decided how much is enough for the county?

Dan Spahr Blogging

Just a note to let everyone know:

If you haven't had a chance to meet him, Dan Spahr is running for Tucson City council. You can visit his site at:

http://www.danspahr2007.com/

His public appearances Can be found here.

Additionally, Dan has started a blog. I hear that blogging will be all the rage with candidates in the near future.

And as I have related to Dan, I am very envious that he has a caricature in the Skinny and I do not.

Dan is a good man and candidate and is well worth supporting. With the direction that Tucson City keeps taking us, it is time to look at new voices and ways of doing things.

We will have more on the other Republican council challenger Lori Oien up shortly

Karl Takes His Leave

After being told "it's now or never," Karl Rove announced he is leaving now rather than staying to the end of President Bush's term in office. Rumor has it he plans to write a book. (Does any former White House staff member NOT write a book?)

LD26 Resolution Thanks Linda White

This morning, at the monthly LD26 meeting, a resolution honoring Linda White was presented. It was read by Trent Humphries. Following is the text of the resolution:

A VOTE OF THANKS AND SUPPORT FOR OUTGOING PIMA COUNTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LINDA WHITE

WHEREAS, Linda White will no longer continue as the Executive Director of the Pima County Republican Party; and

WHEREAS, Linda has provided many years of tireless work and effort as a part of her duties in this position;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that we as the Republican Precinct Committeemen and Committeewomen of the Twenty-Sixth Legislative District of Arizona wish to thank Linda for this service, and express appreciation for representing us in other positions on the district, county, and state level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we do offer a vote of confidence to Linda White in her remaining positions and any further endeavors that she chooses to commence.

Adopted this 11th day of August, 2007, at the Monthly Meeting of for the District 26 Committeemen and Committeewomen of the Republican Party of Arizona.


The resolution was approved unanimously to a standing ovation.

Feds Jump on Employment Eligibility Demands

Two announcements were made today from the Dept. of Homeland Security that affect employers attempting to verify the hiring status of potential employees:

1) DHS will propose that all federal cntractors be required to use the federal government's EEV system for determining work eligibility for hiring.

2) ICE said they will provide rules for employers when they submit information to the EEV database and it comes back without a match.

This is worth watching as it may influence what happens at the state level with the new employer sanctions law.

Statement from the County Party

I’ve read the comments on several blogs and, sadly, am not surprised that people are taking sides in what is developing into the “White vs. White” debate.

The attacks on Judi and on Linda are as needless as they are hurtful. Such attacks dishonor both ladies’ service to the Party and to the community. Judi and Linda have been good friends to me and to many in the Party. The attacks on their competence and their integrity are inappropriate. Neither deserves to be vilified.

Please do not expect official public statements about the reasons for the termination of Linda’s employment – at least from officials of the County Party. Linda was an employee of the Pima County Republican Party and the termination of her employment needed to be handled with the same decorum and confidentiality that would apply to any other employment situation. A public statement regarding the reasons behind Judi’s decision would be inappropriate. I’ve been an employment lawyer for more than 20 years and I have always advised employers against any such public statements.

Please also understand that it was not necessary for Judi to vet the decision through the Executive Committee. Linda served at Judi’s pleasure. If Judi believed that a change in personnel was necessary, she had the authority to make whatever personnel changes she deemed appropriate.

Regardless of whether people agree with the decision, it is done. We need to move on. While we argue about this, Giffords continues to raise money, to get favorable press coverage, and to vote against the interests of the majority of the people in CD8. While we hammer on each other, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and their cohorts continue to abuse the earmark process, advance their surrender agenda, and push us further in the banal quagmire that is socialism. While we fight among ourselves, the Clinton political and money machine rolls inexorably forward, fulfilling George Soros’ dream of an “open society” – one that is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

Let’s honor Linda for the good work that she has done, for her friendship to so many in the Party, and for her loyalty to the Republican Party. Let’s also continue the fight that brings us together – the fight to win elections for Republican candidates.

-Jim Kaucher

1^st Vice Chairman,

Pima County Republican Party

Pima County GOP Ex Dir let go

Today’s breaking news is that Linda White, Executive Director of Pima County Republican Party, will no longer be serving in that capacity. Our sources indicate that the decision was made by Judi White (no relation,) county chair of the party.

The decision should make for an interesting time at the next Pima County Republican Committee meeting since Linda is a member of that board, as well as secretary of the State Republican Party.


There have been grumbling about Judi’s management style and vision (or lack of both) but no firm plans to remove her before her term as chair expires in late 2008. With the termination of the popular and capable Linda we wonder if it is time to clean house - starting at the top!

Gabrielle makes top 6.

The Arizona Daily Star has a good article about Giffords and her congressional mailings.

I received her slick postcard mailing asking for my opinions on illegal immigration. I understand the process so I was not too deeply offended by the expenditure of public funds. I was struck by her interest in the topic. Why keep talking about an issue unless you are actually going to be able to do something about it? I think she is setting herself up for the charge of “what did you accomplish.”

Who in Congress Fights For U.S. Businesses/Jobs?

Another example of why high-paying manufacturing jobs keep leaving the U.S.:

A member of the House appeared before the commission alleging that China is manipulating its taxes and currency to keep wages artificially low as a way to keep U.S. businesses from gaining full access to the Chinese market. China undervalues its currency—the yuan—and provides Chinese companies with a 17 percent tax rebate that is funded by taxes imposed on American-produced goods, said U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. That makes it difficult for American manufactures to compete fairly in the global market, he said. “It is this uneven playing field that undercuts American markets and wipes American products off the world’s shelves,” he added.

The idea of “free trade” with China is “a simplistic ideal” because the reality is that China is conducting “predatory trade” supported by low wages, Hunter said. Wages in China range from 25 cents to $1.50 per hour in some areas, and companies can get “pretty skilled Chinese labor” for 25 cents per hour, he said.

The old Farmer-Labor Democrat Party was said to represent the worker, with big business represented by the GOP. Both workers and manufacturers lose out with trade policies like these, and both the Democrats and Republicans can share the blame. But as we approach the next election year, you would think there would be a mad dash to fix it if for no other reason than to get the support of labor and/or business groups like NAM. So far, all is quiet on the fair trade front.

Tim Bee update.

State Senate President Tim Bee is close to setting up an exploratory committee for the CD-8 seat according to a story by Daniel Scarpinato of the Star.

Word is that Meg Econ will be working on the campaign. Meg was last seen heading up the successful Southern Arizona operation for U.S. Senator Jon Kyl. Meg has excellent contacts within the party from her efforts in 2006 and previous campaigns. Bee’s seriousness is demonstrated by the presence of such a quality campaign worker.

Congresssional Leaders Cross the Line

This is too important to not post. Imagine a country where your elected representatives have no real authority to represent you. When votes in the elected body are counted, the party in power ignores the count and declares it "passed" or "not passed" according their desires.

No, we're not talking about a third-world nation in a constant state of revolution. We're talking about the U.S. Congress. When the party in power displays total disregard for the lawmaking process, this country is in serious trouble. Expresso Pundit and Sonoran Alliance have both provided excellent posts on what happened yesterday in the good old U.S.A..

Thank You Gabby!

I'm sure glad the Democrats have been so successful in eliminating the petty bickering and partisanship as they promised during the election. Here's an example of how things have improved:

Debate finally got under way on the measure late Thursday, after a two-day skirmish in which Republicans lodged repeated protest votes and dilatory amendments over what they termed an unfair process for debating an unrelated children's health insurance bill. Democrats resorted to closing down the floor, limiting amendments to about 12 and incorporating six others into the rule.
One of those amendments tucked into the rule was by Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., to block $1.5 million in funding for three earmarks Mollohan requested for the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit in his district that does ecological work.
The government is reportedly investigating Mollohan's ties to the group, including earmarks he has obtained.
In a statement, Mollohan said he agreed to the move to allow the Institute to "carry on its critical work undisturbed by the fallout from a shameful slander campaign."
On the floor, Obey said including the earmarks was a mistake and he and Mollohan "had determined that because they were in controversy, for the good of the house, they should not be considered at this time."
Republicans howled, arguing they had never closed down debate so early in consideration of an appropriations bill. Democrats pulled the bill Tuesday after four hours; Republicans did the same only after much-lengthier debate in the late 1990s, GOP aides said.
"They are shoving it up our a**," one aide said. The rule passed, 224-194.
Democrats said they were resorting to the tactic only because Republicans went back on a prior agreement to allow appropriations to proceed, after Democrats in June agreed to list earmarks up front in spending bills.
Democrats complained that Republicans were delaying an unrelated bill in protest over the healthcare measure, but Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Democrats' hands were not clean in that regard.
On the floor, he cited an instance a decade earlier where Pelosi and others, including Obey and Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., delayed consideration of the fiscal 1998 Agriculture measure for nine hours after Republicans refused to allow Pelosi to offer an abortion-related amendment to another bill.
"The rule that we have before us that shuts us down, it's unfair, it's unwise, it's un-Democratic, and it does not deserve the support of any member of this House," Boehner said. Slaughter said she did not recall the incident. "I don't really go around thinking about what happened in 1998. I've got my hands full with 2007," she said.

Uh, Oh! Here Come the Bloggers!

Never underestimate the power of the political blogosphere. Framer keeps suggesting that bloggers will have greater influence in the upcoming election than ever before...substantial influence, in fact. As evidence, consider that 1500 people showed up for the second annual blogger convention organized by Mr. Daily Kos, himself. The event attracted 500 bloggers, 250 journalists, and a bunch of Democratic presidential candidates who wouldn't be there unless they thought it was important.

So, what do liberal bloggers do when they get together? According to the article in the Wall Street Journal, they spend 3 days in a "wonk-fest of panels, speeches and what promise to be beer-soaked parties."

Don't think this liberal, beer-drinking, partying crowd doesn't take what they do seriously, however. The article reports they have raised more than $25 million for Democratic candidates since 2005. They also get taken seriously. "Liberal bloggers now routinely get invited to campaign events to meet candidates, they receive press credentials and sometimes are given exclusive information during briefings and blogger conference calls."

The bloggers have arrived...

U.S. Ball & Chain Trade Policies

When I took a business trip to Chile a while back, I stepped off the plane in Santiago and was met with a sign that said something about a reciprocity fee. Apparently, the U.S. government charges travelers from Chile a fee when they enter the U.S. I have no idea why our governement does this, but the Chileans respond in kind adjusting the fee to the same level as the fee in the U.S. It's an interesting concept: If you charge us a fee, we'll do likewise. If you don't charge a fee, neither will we.

So, with all the talk about free trade, why don't we do the same with our trading partners? If they slap on a tariff, so do we, etc. Instead, between tariffs and value added taxes, our trading partners charge us on average between 20 and 25 percent on our exports to their country. But we don't respond in kind making it extremely difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete globally. Some of these taxes are WWII leftovers we instituted to help our wartime enemies rebuild. Maybe it's time to sunset these outdated policies and give our domestic producers a fair shake.

Two entities are in a great position to reform our policies: Our state legislature, which can pass a resolution to get the attention of Congress , and Congress—specifically, our senators—who should be leading the charge for trade reform. It's not as popular an issue as the war, but the politicians who generate more jobs and strengthen the economy certainly will have something to hang their hats on when re-election time rolls around.

Sad Commentary on the UN

Rupert Murdoch's new toy, The Wall Street Journal, reports that the United Nations are finally taking action to intervene in the genocide of black Christians in Darfur:
"Four years, 200,000 dead and two million displaced people later, the United Nations has finally authorized a peacekeeping contingent for Sudan's Darfur region. Good intentions and eternal hope aside, this latest mission looks ready-made to continue the U.N.'s sorry record on stopping genocide."

A sorry record indeed. In the case of Bosnia, it was NATO that eventually stepped in to replace the non-response from the UN. In the Sudan, there is no NATO to save the day. Only the UN. If the UN had been effective in Bosnia, those citing ethnicity or religion as the reason for UN inaction would have a case. Under the circumstances, the UN seems consistently pitiful and inept making it difficult to label them partial.

Giuliani's Long-awaited Health Care Plan

Today, Rudy Giuliani announced his plan for cleaning up the health care system. Under his plan, each family gets $15,000 in tax credits with which to buy their own health insurance. If, after paying for premiums, the family has leftover tax credits, they can use them to pay for out-of-pocket expenses.

The plan has some merit. 1) If the system works, it would remove some of the burden for health insurance from employers who have been struggling to provide a reasonable benefit for employees in the face of sky-rocketing health insurance costs. 2) Using tax credits ensures that the money is spent for insurance and nothing else. The amount, $15,000, should be enough to cover most families depending on the plans they choose.
3) The program supports the medical savings account concept which encourages people to take responsibility for costs just as they do with any family budget item, thereby influencing costs by their purchasing decisions. It gives the consumer more power in the marketplace.
4) In the plan, leftover funds are also able to be rolled over year-to-year and used, as necessary, for medical expenses.

Some questions about the plan have yet to be answered such as how some people with prior conditions will be able to get into a plan. Once they leave an employer group plan, consumers are left to the whims of the insurance community who have been unwilling to allow even healthy individuals into their plans if they have been diagnosed with certain conditions in the past. Those who would be interested in an individual plan would most likely be employees with employers that do not currently offer affordable insurance. Insurance companies often refuse to insure consumers who have been without insurance, or, interestingly, those who have not seen a doctor within a year or two. Clearly, some changes or additions would have to be made to make this a workable program, but the concept certainly has promise.

One bit of information Giuliani has yet to give is his estimate of the cost to taxpayers for such a program—not a minor issue.

U.S. House Attacks Earmarks & Lobbyists

It's almost too good to be true. Despite wasting time debating and passing a resolution demanding the Japanese apologize again for World War II atrocities, House Democrats created a bill that has something to do with U.S. citizens. Finally, the House voted 411-8 to require Senators to publicize their earmarks 48 hours prior to a Senate vote. They would also have to declare that family members would not benefit financially from the projects. Obviously, this is not retroactive or there would be too few senators left to conduct business.

The bill also requires House and Senate members to disclose lobbyists who raise at least $15,000 for their campaigns within a six-month period or donate gifts, tickets to sporting events, meals, concerts, etc.

Hazleton Ruling "Bizarre"

Espresso Pundit scooped me while I tried to spend a few days making a living. But he missed a few interesting aspects of the issue. For one, the ACLU took the case for several illegal aliens living in Hazleton who represent a growing population of illegal aliens in the area estimated to number in the thousands or about 1 of every 10 in the city. The city has been funding their defense with donations, not taxpayer money.

The U.S. District judge, Munley, is a Clinton appointee. Here are some of his statements from Reuters: "Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not." And from International Herald Tribune: Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids excessive enforcement against illegal immigrants so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."

Mayor Barlett called the decision "bizarre," and Kris Kobach from the city's legal team complained about the judge allowing 10 illegal aliens to file anonymous depositions instead of testifying, a right not even granted to U.S. citizens. Kobach also took issue with the judge's position that people are not illegal unless a federal immigration judge rules that they are.

Considering this law was held up by an injunction a year ago and the injunction had no impact on other states or cities passing such laws, and the unusual bases for this judge's ruling, it's hard to see this ruling having much of an impact on similar laws passed elsewhere.

Border Security Advocates Heard in D.C.

After the Senate immigration reform bill failed, Jon Kyl publicly articulated his understanding that the public was asking for a commitment to border security before considering anything else, particularly amnesty. Senator Kyl stated that he heard the message and would respond.

True to his word, Kyl championed the Border Security First Act which provides $3 billion for more border security including more agents, surveillance equipment, vehicle barriers and 700 miles of fence along with funding to clean up the Basic Pilot Program database.

The bill passed on an 89-1 vote after a provision against sanctuary cities was removed.

In the meantime, the House on Wednesday voted to prevent the Bureau of Prisons from keeping former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Alonso Compean in federal prison while they await their appeals.

Fred Thompson's Non-campaign Staff Shakeup

According to Time, Fred Thompson, who hasn't declared himself a GOP presidential candidate, is shaking up his technically non-campaigning campaign staff. Campaign manager, Tom Collamore is being replaced by former Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham and Florida GOP strategist Randy Enwright. The article suggests Thompson's wife is behind the staff changes. Obviously, if you're going to change staff, it's better to do it before the campaign than in the heat of the primaries, so the timing of this move makes sense even if the reasons are not clear.

Beyond the staff change soap opera, Thompson has stated he will postpone his decision to run (or not) until after Labor Day which gives him time to beef up fundraising before the big announcement. In the meantime, Thompson continues to hold his own at 2nd place in the polls in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida—not bad for someone not in the race.

Dems raise the white flag in Tucson.

The Democrats have been pretty confident lately. They took control of both houses of congress and made some stunning gains in the legislature. The Republicans are at war with each other over people illegally entering and living in the country. Add to that the fact that the moderates still do not much care for the social conservatives and you have a perfect storm for the Democrats. So one has to ask in a Democrat town in a Democrat year why did they not run a candidate for Mayor of Tucson, the second largest city in Arizona?

The absence of a candidate is glaring. Were they waiting for Walkup to lose support within the business community? The Republicans are not in 2nd place in Tucson voter registration, they are in Third Place, behind Other (independents and no party.) The Democrats have an almost 2-1 advantage over the Republicans. The Republicans that do live in Pima County mostly live outside the city and despite constant pleas from city candidates those outside Tucson do not seem very interested in working for candidates for whom they cannot vote. Quite a missed opportunity.

WakeUpArizona Caught Sleeping

Here's an interesting "gotcha" moment. A web site called wakeuparizona.net has been setup to counter the WakeUpArizona group, the group comprising a few irate employers committed to fighting the new Employer Sanctions Law.

In the meantime, Arizona Chamber of Commerce Director Glenn Hamer has announced the state Chamber will join wakeuparizona in challenging the law. Hamer's support for wakeuparizona flies in the face of the 6000 plus members of the state's largest chamber who support the law. However, his decision comes as no surprise as he was also a fundraiser in Maricopa county for losing CD8 candidate Steve Huffman last year working with some of the same businessmen now opposing the law.

Lisa James Running a PAC

Lisa James, former candidate for Arizona State Party Chairman, is now Chairman of the Arizona Majority PAC, formerly Proven Leadership for America, and originally Keep Congress Honest PAC. The PAC's stated purpose is to "ensure that our Republican Congressional candidates have the resources they need to emerge victorious in 2008."

For 2006, the PAC has raised $16, 010 with Don Diamond, Alan Heywood and Christine Olson each putting in $5,000. Chad Willems is the Treasurer and founder.

Democratic Debate

You can't begin to imagine how much it bothers me that Hillary Clinton is the least bad choice of all of the Democrats who have a chance at the nomination. She is the only Democratic candidate that looks to have at least one or two non-pandering stances on any of the issues, and thus the only one among the frontrunners that appears to be able to make a tough, controversial choice. Not so much an endorsement of her, but an indictment of Obama and Edwards.

I would suppose that being so far ahead in all of the polls helps her somewhat in being able to stand on principle at this point.

I have convinced myself, however, that if I ever see that coward Mark Warner, I will kick him in the shins.

LD 30 Races Get More Interesting

Now that Tim Bee has made his decision to challenge Gabby...pardon me...Gabrielle, and Jonathon Paton is stepping into the state Senate race, Frank Antenori will be announcing his run for the state House joining the rest of the crowd of candidates running in LD30. Frank has some ends to tie up before announcing, but expect something formal late August or early September.

Frank has been working hard to get things ready for this campaign, so he will be jumping pretty quickly out of the chute giving no advantage to those who have already announced. In fact, expect him to come in with a bang, so to speak.

The word on the street is that Frank Antenori and Sharon Collins will be the strongest candidates in the House race.

On the Democrat side, Nan Walden, Green Valley pecan grower, attorney and University of Arizona hired schmoozer is the rumored challenger to Jonathon Paton. Her impressive resume includes work with Senator Moynihan as an environmentalist. She is involved with a group that opposes employer sanctions for hiring illegals and tighter border security measures which seems contradictory to her environmental positions. (It may simply be a matter of priority for her.) She has been a vocal opponent of allowing the Border Patrol to install permanent checkpoints that would route illegals into areas where they would be easier to capture, which has raised the ire of the Border Patrol.

With Paton's strong reputation and Walden's anti-border security positions, it's hard to imagine Paton losing this race in conservative LD30, but Walden certainly will have the money to make it interesting.

2008 Corporate Commission Race Begins

Rick Fowlkes from Mesa is the first to throw his hat in the ring for Corporate Commission in 2008. He ran as a Libertarian candidate the past two elections with a respectable showing in 2006. Now he is running as a Republican. His platform includes expanding the boundaries of the markets in which utilities are allowed to operate to allow for some competition and choice for consumers. He is opposed to mandates on utilities that restrict options for providing power to consumers (a good position in light of the California power shortage fiasco). Fowlkes owns a consulting engineering firm—his undergraduate degree is in civil/structural engineering and he has an MBA degree.

Rumors have been circulating that state legislator Marian McClure is also considering a run for the Corporate Commission although she has yet to file.

Paton to file for LD 30 senate

Our sources indicate that Representative Jonathan Paton will very soon file an exploratory committee for the LD 30 senate race. (The resign to run laws are likely the reason for an exploratory committee at this time instead of a candidate committee.) With news that Marian McClure is looking to run for the Corporation Commission Paton may have smooth sailing in the primary (more on the general later.)

Speaking of Representative Paton, there is an article in the Arizona Daily Star about his efforts to bring more openness to the state’s Child Protection Services. It is a sad reality that after a child has died there is no longer a justifiable expectation of privacy to warrant keeping the CPS file secret. Public review of the file may help legislators and the agency craft better policies to protect the state’s children in future cases. It also provides the public with the basic right to know how their government is operating.

The excuses for stonewalling made by the governor and other legislators is disappointing. Any sensitive information relating to future criminal proceedings or the privacy of other children could easily be protected by redacting that information from the report.

For more background see New questions arise on CPS ties to slain children.

Scarpinato at the Star has some more details on LD 30 and CD 8.

U.S. House Hearings On Compean & Ramos Case

At the U.S. House hearings on the Ramos and Compean case, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council testified in detail what happened at the scene of the shooting and the subsequent prosecution. Reading his statement demonstrates how truly bizarre this case is. Think about it...two agents shoot the smuggler they say pointed a gun at them. The smuggler gets away by fleeing into Mexico. There is nothing to suggest the smuggler isn't armed. Funny thing, when the prosecutor tracks him down and informs him that he is sending to jail the very agents who shot him, the smuggler claims he had no gun when he was shot. In other words, it's the known smuggler's word against two agents, and the smuggler has a chance to punish those who would otherwise arrest him. Is it possible that the drug smuggler has a credibility problem? Of course not. It's the agents who are guilty unless they can prove the drug smuggler had a gun that he carried home to Mexico.

Well, it doesn't sound like the House leadership is buying U.S. Attorney Sutton's version of events. According to the IBD, Diane Feinstein explained the purpose of the hearings was to "examine the facts of the Ramos and Compean cases, the appropriateness of the charges brought against them and the very heavy sentences they received."
The IBD also stated: As she noted in a letter to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., requesting the hearings, "These men were given sentences that some individuals convicted of murder would not receive." Sentences, we might add, based on the suppression of evidence and the government's reliance on and coddling of a repeat drug-runner.

Likewise, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized the 12- and 11-year prison sentences: And they strongly questioned federal prosecutors' decision to charge the pair with using a weapon during the commission of a crime — a 10-year penalty that most often is used against drug dealers and other criminals, not law enforcement officers obliged to carry guns as part of their jobs. This really is a case of prosecutorial ... overreaction in charging," said Feinstein. She chaired the hearing, which was attended by the wives of the ex-agents and other relatives. The senators bored in on some of the case's most nagging questions: Why the drug smuggler, who had been driving a van with a million-dollar payload of marijuana, was given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean; why the trafficker was given unfettered permission to cross into the United States after the agents were charged; and whether he used that border-crossing privilege to bring in another million-dollar marijuana haul just months after the February 2005 incident near El Paso. "The public sees two Border Patrol agents serving long prison sentences while an admitted drug smuggler goes free," Cornyn said, adding that he has "serious concerns about the judgment calls made during the prosecution of this case."

It would be hard to imaglne this hearing not helping the Compean and Ramos cases in the push for presidential pardons.

Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in Iraq?

Wow! What a cool story! The U.S. troops in Iraq are bringing back the Boy and Girl Scouts. I have heard a little about how this is happening. Since it's hard to get safe places to meet, the kids are brought together in larger groups as one big troop, for instance, to learn knots, play sports, etc.—a nice diversion from living in a war-torn country.

U.S. House to Hear Compean & Ramos Case

H.R. 563 which requests congressional pardons for agents Compean and Ramos, now has 100 cosponsors. Tomorrow morning at 10am, (Tuesday, July 17th) the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing to “Examine the Prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.”

I'm not sure what it means to be given a "hearing." But it sounds like it would provide some hope for Compean and Ramos to get the pardons they have been seeking without having to wait for their appeals to go to court. I'm also not sure about the connection of this hearing to H.R. 563. Maybe someone more knowledgable will comment.

In any case, a mass email/phone campaign to House members is underway to support the agents. We'll update you Tuesday as we learn more.

The Misguided Few

According to Arizona Central, here is the group looking for someone that they can make an example of for supporting the Employer Sanctions Bill:
"The coalition, Wake Up Arizona!, counts Valley McDonald's franchiser Mac Magruder, Tucson car dealer Jim Click, former Phoenix Suns Chief Executive Jerry Colangelo and Meritage Homes Chief Executive Steve Hilton among its supporters."

Some of these employers may be hiring illegal workers, others maybe just a bit paranoid. Jim Click, for instance, was quoted as saying "I've got my whole life invested in this business...What if my service manager turns his head, or fakes it (when hiring a worker)? I lose my license? Is that fair? I don't think so."

This is silly. Of course it's fair. Jim is a smart businessman. He knows that if his service manager was caught cheating customers, dumping solvents in the sewer, or otherwise breaking the law, Jim would be losing his license. He knows it would only make sense that breaking hiring laws wouldn't be any different.

The issue nobody is citing is the concern about the accuracy of the Basic Pilot System for checking workers' status. That would be my main concern having had to deal with the frustrations and risks of hiring green card workers and trying to be sure their documents were legitimate without getting sued by the worker for being cautious. That's what this group should be working to improve.

Unfortunately, for some it's more of a power game, and the same group that gave us Gabby Giffords will end up giving up more Republican seats to Democrats, state or federal, if they succeed. But I don't think they will. There's a reason the bill passed with a veto-proof majority, And there's also a reason why some of the largest Chambers are supporting the bill pushing the state Chamber back against this group. It's because most employers hire legal workers and expect their competitors to do the same. Employers' biggest concern is making sure compliance with the law is not unduly burdensome and that they will be in no danger of problems if they follow the law.

If this group is serious about making a contribution to the business community, they should join with the mainstream and help to improve the law, and use their resources productively instead of further alienating themselves from the GOP.

Could you become a citzen?

Interesting quiz from MSNBC.

Of course, the real test is much longer, and I do not believe it is multiple choice. Nevertheless, it was very interesting to see what is expected of naturalized citizens.

Oh yeah, and fess up to your scores in the comments section. I got 90%. Missed 8 and 19.

Zero What?

Last week's Northwest Explorer provided front page space for an article about Tyler Robbins. Tyler is the student that picked up a small pocket knife he found in the street on his way to school with the intent of giving it to the principal. According to the article, he pulled it out of his pocket before taking it to the principal and was caught by a staff member who promptly marched him to the principal's office where he was suspended for breaking the zero tolerance rule for knives. He wasn't suspended for waving the knife around irresponsibly, nor was he caught bullying or threatening someone. He simply pulled it out of his pocket.

Perhaps knives have been used irresponsibly, or threateningly, in this particular school. If so, I could understand the need for a policy cracking down on the inappropriate use of this little tool in the interest of student safety. But, instead of creating a sensible policy to address the problem, the district banned the tool entirely.

In the case of Tyler, when he came upon the knife, he had a couple of options. He could have left it there allowing the possibility that a less responsible, or younger, child would pick it up and hurt someone, a very likely scenario given the hundreds of children passing that way on their way to school. He could have left it there and reported it—a very impotent choice given the number of students passing by. Or, he could have picked it up and taken it to someone in authority who would know what to do with it. Of course, he could have taken it to school with the intent to do harm to someone else, but there is no evidence to suggest this was the case. So, we have to assume that Tyler was at least responsible enough to pick it up. (Remember, this is not a loaded AK-47).

Unfortunately for Tyler, instead of being taught a positive lesson about his decision to pick up the knife in the interest of protecting others, and doing the right thing with it by taking it to the prinicipal, he was punished and told that, in this case, doing the right thing was the wrong thing. In fact, the message was that he should have simply left the knife there despite the risks.

I am not at all against a policy to protect students when it seems necessary to do so. I do have a problem with "zero tolerance" policies that equate to zero thinking or zero common sense. Our principals are educated and intelligent enough to tell whether or not a child is creating a safety problem by bringing a pocket knife into the school, and deal with it appropriately. Likewise, they can tell the difference between shooting a real gun versus shooting a squirt gun, or accidentally falling on someone versus intentionally hitting them.

Those who advocate an either/or policy suggest either it has to be "anything goes" with no safeguards, or everyone has to be punished under any circumstance if seen with anything resembling the banned implement. The problem with this is that they are abdicating to a mere policy the responsibility of discerning and making tough decisions. And what does that teach the kids? It certainly doesn't teach responsibility and moral courage. And it doesn't help the kids to develop anything but disrespect for the authority that caused the resulting injustices, like Tylers. I think we can do better than that. And I think our school administrators should be allowed to do better than that. Common sense could go a long way in the educations of our children.

Jaw Dropping

Quote you won't see on Gabby Giffords' next frankenmailer:

"I will release all the earmarks as they get funded," Giffords said. "Just because I have a neighboring congressman who decides to do something, I don't necessarily feel pressure to do the same thing."

"I just don't think that releasing a list of earmarks is the best transparent way to explain to the people all the work that you're doing."

Entirely true, if by "I will release" you mean "bloggers will dig up," if by "all earmarks" you mean "the earmarks that are forced into the public domain" and by "best transparent" you mean "best way of hiding something inconvenient."

Ms. Giffords, how about you just show your work and let that be your best explanation? I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a part of the platform you ran on. Maybe change can wait until you get your fill at the trough, however.

UPDATE- For those who miss the last few weeks of telephoning Congressional Staff, ThinkRight has all of the phone numbers you need to state your concerns.

Unexplored aspect of a McCain decline.

Sorry I have been away for a while. I had a little work to do.

There has been quite a bit written about the recent misfortunes of the McCain Campaign, so I will not add a tremendous amount. As I had written earlier, 10 million in fundraising should have been enough to keep him in the game. I had not, however, a clue as to his burn rate.

It is my belief that McCain's flaw was in moving from "the girl who brung him" and attempting to recreate what worked for Bush in 2000. McCain's insurgent 2000 campaign was far more suited to him and his strengths. Releasing his new team and moving back to his old team should have happened long before now.

Iowa is a good example. A great portion of McCain's money was spent in Iowa where McCain did not campaign eight years ago. The same reasons that made Iowa a bad fit for McCain eight years ago still applied today, especially his lack of support for ethanol. Skip it and spend in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney dumped money into New Hampshire and it has paid off for him. I believe McCain could have got more from a smaller sum there if he hadn't been tempted by spending big on Iowa. Then he should have spent most of the rest in South Carolina. That's it. He wins those two states, his name recognition gets him the nomination, barring outside events. This probably would have been true in 2008 as well, for that matter.

And it goes without saying that recent legislative and world events harmed McCain. Thus the reason why very few sitting senators become president. Had McCain spent less on Bush staffers, however, he may have been able to better navigate these pitfalls.

Eight years should have been enough to find more Mike Hellons and other grassroots level activists to rely on rather than collecting higher priced Bush campaign hood ornaments. This approach would have certainly closed the feedback loop a little tighter as well.

All that being said, the aspect that I wonder about is if McCain moving back to his roots doesn't allow him to move back into contention, does that put Arizona back into play? From a state party standpoint that could be a good thing as it will assure a lot more candidate presence and spending which would increase state and state candidate coffers.

It should be interesting.

2008 State Legislative Races Update

SENATE
LD 26: Melvin & Hershberger are still the only filers. Despite Scarpinato's column in the newspaper a while ago suggesting Pesquiera is running again, our sources have cited multiple statements made by Charlene Pesquiera that she will not run again. Nevertheless, she has filed as an elected official to organize a committee to raise and spend money for constituent communications. This doesn't mean she is running, just that she isn't planning to disappear during the off-season. The only update we expect to make in this race is who will run for the Democrats.

Nobody has thrown their hat into the ring for LD 27, 28, 29, or 30.

HOUSE
LD 26: Still Marilyn Zerull and Trent Humphries on the GOP side. Lena Saradnik and Don Johnson from the Dems have not yet filed although at least one has signed up for Democrat campaign school. This race is probably pretty well set. The Democrats will not enter anyone else into the race (Lena is a given and they don't really have anyone else to run besides Don) and the Republican candidates have broad support. I don't expect a repeat of last year's primary with four candidates in the GOP primary.

Nobody has filed in LD 27.

LD 28 has only incumbent Democrat David Bradley filing to run for re-election.

LD 29 has Bruce Murchison, a Republican, planning a run. He could be a strong candidate with the right team.

LD 30 is getting interesting on the GOP side with David Gowen, Sharon Collins, and Doug Sposito all planning to run. Others are waiting in the wings for Jonathan Paton to file, and Tim Bee to officially announce his run for Congress. This could be the most interesting district to watch in the next election. We expect to hear something from Tim Bee in the next few weeks afterwhich we expect things to start happening...even more.

OOPS! Sorry, forgot to include LD25 in the districts with no candidates filing for state house or senate.

Arizona Employer's Sanctions Bill

For those still trying to get a handle on the new Arizona Employer's Sanctions bill signed into law last week by Governor Napolitano, here are the main points:

1) Identity fraud, including for employment purposes, is a felony.

2) Beginning January 1, 2008, every employer must verify eligibility of all newly hired employees through the federal Basic Pilot Program.

3) Anyone can file a complaint against an employer hiring illegal aliens. The Attorney General or County Attorney must investigate every complaint. It is a misdemeanor to frivolous complaint against an employer.

4) Assuming the complaint is legitimate, Attorney General or County Attorney must:
a. Notify federal immigration, customs and local law enforcement agencies.
b. File a lawsuit against the employer. (Courts are required to expedite the lawsuit.)

5) For a first offense of “knowingly” hiring an illegal worker:
a. The employer must terminate the illegal workers.
b. The employer will serve three years probation during which the employer must file quarterly reports documenting all new hires where the illegal workers were employed.
c. All employer licenses (uncluding business license) will be suspended unless within three days after the court order, the employer signs an affidavit stating that it has released all illegal workers and will not knowingly or intentionally hire illegal workers. If a second violation, all licenses are permanently revoked.

6) For a first offense of "intentionally" hiring an illegal worker:
a. Same as "a" above.
b. The employer will serve a five year probation and file quarterly reports documenting all new hires.
c. Same as "c" above except licenses will be suspended for a minimum of ten days. A second violation also gets all licenses permanently revoked.

7) "knowingly" hiring means that at some point from initial hiring process to later on, the employer knew about it and hired the illegal worker, or kept them on, anyway. "Intentionally" refers to making a concerted effort to employ illegal workers.

A couple of thoughts: The penalties seem quite reasonable, but the Basic Pilot program is a disaster. Considering that the Swift Meat Packers used it to absolve themselves of responsibility hiring illegals, it gives cause for concern. The identity fraud provision is long-overdue considering we live in the identity fraud capital of the country. I like the fact that courts have to expedite the process

Legislative District 26 Has a Field of Candidates!

We recently announced the two GOP candidates for state senate in LD26: Al Melvin and Pete Hershberger.

We now know the Republican state house candidates in LD 26:
Marilyn Zerull is a precinct committeeman very active in several GOP organizations on the northwest side. She has filed her papers and is well on her way to qualifying.

Neophyte Trent Humphries has also filed his papers. Trent is a newer precinct committeeman but not at all new to politics.

Where's the Beef, Leahy and Rockefeller?

In a couple of editorials this past week, the IBD editorial board raised some security concerns and hammered Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy for not poor, but no, performance. While Leahy argues about whether or not the President should be able to fire his appointed attorneys, threats to America's security continue to mount. Also not off the hook is Senator Rockefeller who oversees the Senate Intelligence Committee. Getting serious about securing our borders, supporting more secure temporary visa documents, and supporting law enforcement and the judiciary in shutting down terrorists should be the priority of the Senate, not whining about decades of executive employment practices as part of a political vendetta against the President.

Points of concern raised:
1) Iran is using Hezbollah to aid Shiite terrorists in Iraq in killing U.S. troops.
2) Iran's Revolutionary Guard has opened three terrorist training camps where groups of up to 60 Iraqis learn the arts of terrorism.
3) Iran's nuclear program is accelerating.
4) Iran has signed an arms deal with Hugo Chavez.
5) Iran-supported Hezbollahs are building a base in the jungles of South America for training terrorists and attacking the U.S.
6) Iran's leader, Ahmadinejad, is making deals with terrorist Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega.
7) Since 2002, the U.S. state department warned Congress of al-Qaida and Hezbollah joint workings in South America.

When the housefire is beginning to rage is not the time to stop and criticize the decor. Let's get back to the fire-at-hand.

Caught In the Cookie Jar

The Bush administration has been relentless in going after corrupt corporate executives. It looks like some of that enthusiasm is being directed to execs involved in illegal immigration activities. According to HR Executive magazine, another illegal alien-hiring pair of executives got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Mel Kay, founder and president of Golden State Fence Company and Michael McLaughlin, general manager pleaded guilty to knowingly hiring illegal aliens. This is the same company that once worked on the San Diego border fence back in the 1990s although they apparently weren't using illegal aliens in that project.

The punishment? 1,040 hours of community service and 3 years probation for the two execs plus $200,000 for Kay and $100,000 for McLaughlin in fines. The company will fork over a $4.7 million fine—quite a lot for a small company.

If the President wants a legacy, tackling corporate corruption is one that has momentum and certainly one that was long overdue. It may not be as big as the immigration issue, but if he continues to go after exploiters of illegal border crossers, he will have some impact on it just the same.

Hillary's Supporters Show Up to Arizona Parade

Happy Independence Day!

We hope all had a wonderful celebration of our nation's independence.

After listening on the radio yesterday to random citizens respond poorly to simple questions about the founding of our nation, I began to reflect a bit more deeply this year about what this holiday is all about. These respondents, including a school teacher, did not know what the holiday was about, from whom we gained our independence, which war it was that we fought to establish the nation, and who wrote the Declaration of Independence. It was sobering to say the least.

Well, at our house we celebrated the usual way enjoying some relaxing time off listening to inspiring patriotic music, watching a couple of patriotic movies about the birth of our nation, spending time with family, eating too much barbequed food and, of course, enjoying the fireworks. But this year, we read together a little about George Washington and his experiences at Valley Forge that led to the turning point in the war. And I was proud to know my children know something about the birth of the nation and what has made us successful.

As the day comes to a close, I find myself with a greater appreciation for all that was sacrificed and for all that was inspired to create what is truly a remarkable system of government established to ensure the freedoms we all enjoy. May we always appreciate, respect and uphold it.

God Bless America!!!

Looks like we got ourselves a primary

It appears that Pete Hershberger has filed papers to form an exploratory committee for the District 26 Senate seat.

Looks like a Heshberger-Melvin primary.

And yes, despite speculation by some, Hershberger is looking to run as a Republican.

In a nutshell. . .

This will probably be the last thing I post on the failed immigration bill, but I couldn't let this Arizona Star Opinion Piece go without comment. If you want a real reason why the bill failed, look at how it was being defended and pushed. This piece of "journalism" demonstrates all of this succinctly. Short and facts and sound argument it relies entirely on emotionalism and venom. Certainly not the way to win a consensus. Here is my rebuttal of the piece:

By the end of last week, every politician who could get to a phone or a computer was eager to let the world know how disappointed he or she was over the death of the immigration bill.

Those were the people, like Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who had made a valiant but unsuccessful effort to create an immigration bill that would lure hard-liners from the far right and far left into the center.

Mr Portillo, and I assume that this is Mr. Portillo, should go ahead and list the names of the politicians “disappointed” about the death of the Bill. Last I checked the vote was 53-46 which would signal to me that a majority of the Senate wasn’t really all that broken up about it.

Indeed, Senator Kyl’s own valiancy should be called into question during the second iteration. He surely voted for the bill, but his advocacy became subservient to Graham, Lott, and the administration. That would possibly be a result of seeing the damage his fellow deal makers were taking back home. That Randy Pullen gets around.

That didn't happen. Narrow-mindedness won the day. Anyone who sees this as a victory for America is living in a fantasyland.

Wow, an editorial masterpiece! As someone deliciously points out in the comments section, “Narrow-mindedness” isn’t even a word. Three sentences in and he is already resorted to name calling. Do you think that just maybe this might have been part of the problem in the first place? In the lack of solid evidence or argument to support the immigration bill, this seemed to be the preferred method of convincing America. Here’s a hint, you want to pass a six hundred page law that drastically changes the status quo, it is your job to convince the people. It is not your opponent’s duty. If you cannot do this, your law deserves to lose on it’s merits. Accusing others of narrow-mindedness is not a defense.

Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen reflected the views of many of the critics when he declared that the defeat of the immigration bill was "a great day for Americans in general and the grassroots of the Republican Party."

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps called the death of the immigration bill "a small but significant victory . . . in the fight to secure our nation's borders."

It is questionable whether either Pullen or the militia reflects the views of most Republicans or most Americans. Certainly their views are opposite of those expressed repeatedly on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, which is arguably the most conservative mainstream newspaper in the country.

What is questionable is the editor’s evidence that somehow most Republicans or even Americans were for the Bill. If support appears in the Editorial section of the Wall Street Journal, it must be insanely popular. I wonder if the editors would hold that to be true of all issues that the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes about? I’ll hold them to it.

Now, for those who do not live in a “fantasyland” here is actual polling evidence to back up claims of the Bills unpopularity:

Dem Poll finds Tepid Support for Immigration Bill
Bush Sinking Along with Immigration Bill
Just 22% Favor Stalled Immigration Bill

In fact the only supportive polling that I ever saw was polling that culled out some favorable points out of the Bill and asked about them. Unfortunately, the bill didn’t actually work that way.

There is no question, however, that both Pullen and the militia reflect an opinion consistent with that of the John Birch Society, which says, "The problem facing the nation along the southern border with Mexico is not so much immigration as invasion."

For those who missed the previous MINUTEMEN!!! association, Mr. Portillo throws in MILITIAS!! And THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY!!! for added effect. I don’t remember any of those groups being part of the larger debate, but whatever. . .

By extension, this view holds that those here illegally are nothing more than criminals, regardless of how long they've been here or what their achievements have been or how much they have contributed to the U.S. economy.

If “by extension” means, “please wait while I construct a suitable straw man.” Please check the number of Democrats that voted against this Bill. I’ll play their silly game, however. Very few view those hear illegally as “nothing more” than criminals, but what part of illegal is hard to understand? If “contributing to the US economy” is all that is needed to justify illegal action, then we better free everyone jailed on account of Enron (my straw man is bigger than yours). And it is not like those employed illegally are some type of Peace Corps operation to improve America’s economy. They are here to make more money than they could back home. Obviously laudable in terms of achieving more for their families, but not enough on its face for America to obviate many of its current laws to accommodate them. It is the job of the Bill supporters to make a sufficiently convincing case for this. They did not.

But those who cheer the death of the immigration bill in effect cheer the death of progress. The bill's defeat does nothing except maintain the status quo, which is precisely what the critics were fighting against. By a roll-call vote of 46-53, those who were unhappy with the bill basically shot themselves in the foot.

Ahem, that would be 53-46 AGAINST which is not at all insignificant.

Failure to adopt a comprehensive immigration law will not result in a protective bubble over the United States, nor will it lead to a long line of buses carrying 12 million illegal residents out of the country.

Nor would passing this bill. Enforcing the laws already on the books, and avoiding this mess of a bill, however, could possibly keep that 12 million from reaching 20-25 million is short order. Please see 1986 immigration bill for further detail. It is up to Bill proponents to show how passing this Bill is good for anybody outside of illegal residents, firms that hire illegal residents, and Democratic politicians wishing to inflate their voter totals. Here’s a hint, calling those who need convincing names is not a good place to start. An “out of the shadows” reference is due in 3.. 2.. 1..

On the contrary, maintaining the status quo means the estimated 12 million undocumented workers will continue playing a game of cat and mouse with immigration authorities. The rejected bill would have set up a system for bringing those people out of the shadows. Amnesty was not a gift without strings; certainly it led to citizenship, but it was a difficult and cumbersome process. It was not carte blanche.

Thank you for at least identifying Amnesty by its proper term, now we just need to work on the “undocumented” euphemism. Honestly, that is a step forward. And yes, the Z visa program was pretty much Carte Blanche. That was the killing point of the whole bill. Remove the Z visa and this bill passes quite handily, at least on the Republican side. But there I go assuming the editorial board has actually read the bill. I’m disappointed that we couldn’t get a 51 foot ladder reference here.

The bill that died addressed that issue, as well as the need for beefed up border security. Voting to allow the bill to proceed by ending debate were 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans — including Kyl and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Voting to block the bill by allowing debate to continue were 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont. One senator, Tim Johnson, D-S.D., did not vote.
Kyl's theory is that the bill's failure was part of the larger voter backlash. A significant number of Americans, he says, lack confidence in the government's ability to secure the border, issue passports and take care of emergencies like Hurricane Katrina.

"Conservative activists," Kyl said, have "a very firm view that the government is unable to get anything right." Those activists had "a huge impact" on the Senate vote, he said.
Kyl may be right, but it seems to be the most positive spin possible to explain the influence of a bunch of fear-mongering, do-nothing pontificators who have been polluting the airwaves all year.

Jon Kyl is exactly right on the money. And this supposed “bunch of fear-mongering, do-nothing pontificators who have been polluting the airwaves all year” happen to be his constituents by a very large margin. And it appears that the “do-nothing” pontificators seem to accomplished what your pitiful editorial board could not. Just an observation.

Now they've achieved their goal, which means Congress will not revisit the immigration issue until after the 2008 presidential election.

That’s entirely up to Congress. Perhaps they could try submitting a bill through committee, giving it a proper debate, and not depend upon unfinished legislation (which cannot be debated), parliamentary tricks, and a rushed timeline to attempt to club down any possible objections. This is especially true if you are depending upon Harry Reid, who looks a lot like Jeff Sessions’ rented mule.

In the 12 days that ended on Wednesday, 11 bodies were found in the desert between the Mexican border and Tucson.

Oh, and did I forget to mention the non-sequitur emotional appeals? The same 11 would have died had the bill been signed. It is quite plausible to argue that more would have died due to an influx of migrants who wanted to take advantage of the Bill’s provisions.

How many more will die before Congress musters the courage to act on an immigration bill that includes a humane process for regulating the flow of foreign workers into the United States?
We've heard all the critics who say such laws already exist, of course, but it doesn't take a genius to see that those laws are not working.

I would invite the author to show me the provision in the Bill that “includes a humane process for regulating the flow of foreign workers into the United States.” As far as I could tell most of the benefits occur for those who are already here, unless you can get onto the “chain migration” route. There may be provisions for new labor to enter, but they are at a significant disadvantage to those who are already here illegally, almost to the point of being laughable. The CBO estimated that the bill would only discourage illegal immigration by 25% even if all the requested enforcement measures were administered in good faith.

And, indeed, critics DO say that the laws exist, but they are not being enforced which lies at the crux of the entire argument. At some point promising MORE enforcement options when little to none have been enforced to date becomes a lot like trying to pay off your real house with Monopoly money. If there was a sustained, good-faith effort to enforce existing law, immigration reform or even amnesty could not be stopped. I would probably be an advocate. I believe, however, voters are tired of “I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”

A new approach is needed that includes a guest-worker program, tighter border security and a way to legalize those who are here and have proved themselves worthy of citizenship.
Every member of Congress knows that is needed. However, it is revealing that even a bipartisan effort led by Kyl, a staunch conservative, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a staunch liberal, was unable to build a consensus.

The immigration vote was one that will cost us dearly until more reasonable voices make themselves heard.

There is no grand law that states that all provisions of a better immigration plan need to be contained in one bill. That is just idiotic. Now if you want to argue that there are parts of a plan that are better hid in a 600 page document because they are boondoggles or would be wildly unpopular if scrutinized on their own, then, yes, I would agree.

And the self-styled “more reasonable” voices were heard. Indeed a vast majority of the media fell into this category. Its just that their arguments weren’t and still aren’t convincing. Bummer that whole media monopoly thing didn’t work out for you like you planned.