In 2006 Prop 107 would have added the following words to the Arizona State Constitution:

“To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.”

It was defeated by nearly three points in the election that year, a result that was quite a rarity at that time. Opponents to the Protection of Marriage Act, as it was called, shrewdly and successfully persuaded the majority of Arizona voters that the proposed amendment went too far with the “no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized” language. That meant that all same sex partners, in addition to many opposite sex couples, could be denied a host of benefits and legal protections.

So the conservatives came back with a “marriage only” amendment two years later. Prop 102 added the following words to the state constitution:

“ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE.”

And they swore up and down they were only interested in protecting the precious, holy institution of straight marriage from same-sex interlopers and did not intend to use it to attack civil unions. I had more than one prominent supporter of Prop 102 make that claim right to my face. Of course, the second the 2008 election was over the opponents of marriage equality forgot all about that. One of the first things Governor Brewer did when she was appointed in 2009 was sign a Center for Arizona Policy bill that would have yanked domestic partnership benefits from state employees in same-sex relationships. In the meantime, CAP has made it abundantly clear that they believe so-called “marriage counterfeits” are a threat to society and should be fought vigorously. Since they’ve not had much luck trying to get Phoenix and Tucson to roll back their domestic partnership benefits, Cathi Herrod is now turning her sights on the little hamlet of Bisbee. The Bisbee City Council will be voting tonight on legally recognizing the civil unions of same-sex couples.

They will be the first city in Arizona to give full legal status civil unions, short of marriage which is prohibited in the constitution, if the ordinance passes. CAP is clearly planning to sue if it does:

But a conservative Christian advocacy group says Bisbee can’t legally recognize civil unions that would include same-sex couples.
A letter from the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy says an ordinance would violate the Arizona Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage and would be the subject of a costly legal fight.

Again, this is NOT what they were telling voters about what Prop 102 did back in 2008. Here’s what Peter Gentala, Chairman of Arizona for Marriage, said in support of the measure in the Secretary of State’s publicity pamphlet:

Get the facts. Opponents of marriage will say anything to get you to vote against protecting marriage. Here are some of their distortions:

Myth: Arizonans have already rejected this marriage amendment.

Fact: Proposition 102 is very different from the amendment that was proposed in 2006, and does one thing only: it preserves marriage as between a man and a woman. This amendment sets the issue of domestic partnerships aside and focuses where Arizonans agree: on the meaning of marriage.

Looks like the leaders behind Prop 102 deliberately perpetrated a fraud on the voters of Arizona. Which I doubt troubles their consciences in the slightest, since they’re all about availing themselves of useful lies to advance their cause.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

I am speaking, of course, of Arizona Republic columnist Bob Robb patiently white man-splaining race relations to us.

Racism is ugly and has been a searing experience in American history. It undoubtedly still exists.

Unjustified accusations of racism are perhaps less ugly, but intolerably ugly nonetheless. And a decent case can be made that the false claim of racism is at least as prevalent in today’s politics as is racism itself.

Take the reckless accusations in Arizona about supposed attempts to suppress the Latino vote.

Let’s not sugarcoat this charge. Voter suppression isn’t an accusation that well-intentioned people are taking actions or making proposals that might have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of Latinos who vote. It’s a charge that reducing the number of Latinos voting is the intended purpose. It’s a charge of racism.

Well, if anyone is the foremost expert on what racism is and isn’t, it would be noted sociological expert Bob Robb. By Robb’s reasoning, if racial discrimination is simply an “unintended consequence” of a voting law, then it cannot be considered racist because the people passing the law aren’t overtly stating that such a consequence is their intention. Which means that all the Jim Crow voting laws passed after the ratification of 15th Amendment in 1870, which expressly forbids denial of the vote due to race, until the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-20th century could not have been racist either.

Such disenfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of “good character,” and disqualification for “crimes of moral turpitude.” These laws were “color-blind” on their face, but were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the procedures selectively. Other laws and practices, such as the “white primary,”, attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing “private” political parties to conduct elections and establish qualifications for their members.

As a result of these efforts, in the former Confederate states nearly all black citizens were disenfranchised and removed from by 1910. The process of restoring the rights taken stolen by these tactics would take many decades.

Back to his column, here’s noted legal scholar and voter felony watchdog Bob Robb defending Republican Arizona lawmakers in their attempt to stop activist groups from collecting and delivering ballots:

In the last election, the county recorders became concerned about people dropping off large numbers of early ballots at polling places and reports that people were canvassing neighborhoods collecting early ballots, in some cases posing as county election officials.

Honest elections are fragile things. Politics attracts cheats. This practice is pregnant with potential abuse.

State law currently says that if you need help filling out an early ballot, you and the person who assists you sign the ballot attesting as to the assistance. SB 1003 would simply require the same thing when you ask someone to return your early ballot for you.

That also is supposedly racially-motivated voter suppression.

Yes, politics indeed attracts cheats. But of course Robb isn’t talking about Republican consultant Nathan Sproul. Robb is instead repeating specious accusations about Latino voting activists: “people were canvassing neighborhoods collecting early ballots, in some cases posing as county election officials”. But that allegation makes no sense in light of the voter fraud allegations Rep. Kimberly Yee (R) made to the Republic last month – “I know voter fraud is real” – because she saw boxes full of delivered ballots. In other words, groups picking up ballots need to be banned from doing that because shady characters are misrepresenting themselves and making off with people’s ballots, which they then do what with? Or is it that the votes themselves, having been delivered to the county recorder, are fraudulent as Rep. Yee alleges? People defending the bill might want to get their story straight on why it’s necessary because from here it’s looking pregnant with racially motivated voter suppression, to borrow some phrasing from Robb.

But let’s assume the motivations behind the controversial voting bills going through the Arizona Legislature right now are benign and colorblind. So what? When people make the reasonable prediction that these efforts could disenfranchise certain groups of voters, it is profoundly disrespectful and disgraceful to dismiss their concerns and accuse them, as Robb does, of “reckless accusations” of racism.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

So some Arizona Republicans think they need to do little to attract Hispanics (you can read the article about this here):

“Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, said the GOP already has the right message for Hispanics who are a growing percentage of the state’s voting-age population.”

” Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said the party already has a good message for the Latino community.’What do people like? God? Family? Pro-life? Pro-traditional marriage?” he said. ‘Boy, that sounds a lot like our platform.’”

And this little nugget:

“Gov. Jan Brewer called it ‘unfortunate” that her party has been unable to attract Hispanic voters in Arizona.”

Granted, more sane Republicans, like House Speaker Andy Tobin, recognize the party’s weaknesses.

But as long as the state’s identified as the anti-illegal immigrant hothouse, Arizona Republicans won’t attract Hispanics to their party.

And as long as the crazies at the state level — like Smith — and at the national level — like Texas Official Senate Demagogue Ted Cruz (who recently voted against a resolution recognizing MS Week) — are the loudest voices in the party, as long as the sane wing of the party is silent when the crazies make their pronouncements, the Republican Party will be viewed as the Grand Odd Party, and will not only fail to attract Hispanics, but will increasingly lose women and the young.

If the Party really wants to attract a broader base, it’s time for the sane to point out how batbleep crazy the insane in the party are.

That John McCain did that  and then abruptly apologized for doing so is not a good start.

• Did Jeff Flake lie or just deceive?
• Make it rain: The Scandals keep on coming . . . sort of
• Jodi Arias Trial: Everyone’s 15 minutes of fame

Mike McClellan has lived in Arizona since 1967 where he attended high school and the University of Arizona. McClellan taught high school English for 36 years, including 30 years at at Dobson High School in Mesa. He has been a contributing columnist to both the East Valley Republic editions and the East Valley Tribune.

Mike McClellan's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/mikemcclellansblog/

Legislators are considering defunding Clean Elections and giving the money to education instead. It would have to be done as a ballot measure, but why shouldn’t they? Since the notorious “matching funds” provision was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, interest in welfare for politicians has plummeted considerably.

Just 63 legislative candidates ran “clean” (i.e., with taxpayer money) last year, the first time the number was under 100 since 2002. Just 9.7% of winning campaigns were publicly funded according to the Arizona Capitol Times.

More importantly, Clean Elections has been tried as a way to open up politics to wider participation and it has failed miserably on that score. I’ll square with you. I’m opposed to Clean Elections because I think it’s wrong to take money from a person and give it to politicians they may vehemently disagree with. I wouldn’t support it if it did achieve its goals.

But the numbers don’t lie. Going back to the 1960s, an average of 220 Arizonans have vied each election for the 90 legislative seats. Since Clean Elections passed in 1998, there has been an average of 208 candidates each election. Case closed.

Clean Elections was conceived by its advocates as a demonstration project of how to get more people involved in politics. Their self-congratulatory commercials, also paid for with taxpayer money, claim the program has been a success. But it hasn’t and it’s time to quit pouring scarce resources into it.

• Justice for peons
• Brewer’s Medicaid proposal is conservative? Really?
• Just for something different, follow the law

Patterson is the volunteer chairman of the Goldwater Institute and past chairman of the Arizona Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He has served on several community boards, including Goodwill of Central Arizona, Diamondbacks Foundation and Hospice of the Valley. He is the state chairman for Americans for Tax Reform. Previously, he served as the President of the Arizona Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council (public sector chair). He was the minority leader (91-92) and majority leader (93-96) of the Arizona Senate. He is a registered Republican but not politically active. In addition, he was the organizer and lead tenor of the original Arizona Singing Senators.

Tom Patterson's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/pattersontomc/

Oh this is cute:

Arizona House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, could face a recall election…

…Former unsuccessful legislative candidate Bob Thomas of Phoenix, who is involved with the recall committee, called Fire Representative Chad Campbell, said: “People are concerned about some of the issues he’s been promoting. The list (of issues) is too long to go over right now.”

Sure it is, Bob. Voters in Democrat-heavy LD24 are deeply concerned with the issues that dastardly Minority Leader Campbell is promoting, such as healthcare access, safety from gun violence, and quality schools. The scoundrel. You can tell they are wary of Campbell, since he barely won his 2012 House election (by double digits). The charismatic community organizers of Fire Representative Chad Campbell (catchy title!) have to get 23,000 valid signatures in LD24, which has about 89,000 total voters, by July. This band of rocket surgeons might be able to pull that off, but then they have to recruit some poor schmuck uh…I mean…intrepid hero to run against Campbell on the November ballot. This is the same ballot the Arpaio recall will be on should that effort succeed with their signatures. I don’t have a link to what the results were for the Arpaio/Penzone 2012 race for LD24, but I’m going to hazard a guess that Arpaio didn’t do too well there.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

I think it’s a matter of some importance that the recall of Joe Arpaio fail. If it doesn’t, the recall of Russell Pearce will no longer be an isolated incident, it will be the beginning of a really bad new trend.

Don’t bother me with the argument that Randy Parraz and the others have “the right” to initiate a recall. Of course they do. But we all have the “right” to do a lot of things that are just self-aggrandizing foolishness.

The intent of the recall provision was to allow the people to deal with misconduct in office that shouldn’t wait until the next election to be corrected. Instead, it’s being used as a do-over for people who are simply disappointed with the election results and get a kick out of throwing their weight around.

So what’s wrong with a special election that addresses only the same issues that were there for the general election?

Well it’s a waste of money for one thing. Local governments have more important things to spend money on than pointless elections.

The millions that will go to attack and support Arpaio (again) could surely be put to better use. Of course, the commercial petition gatherers are thrilled.

The other problem is the Continuous Campaign. We already have a problem with political campaigns stretching on forever and much more attention paid to campaigning them to governing. It’s pretty ironic that a campaign which is based partly at least on dereliction of duty issues will itself keep Joe from tending to his sheriff duties. Makes no sense except to the outsized egos behind it.

Well I was preparing to post this, I came across some interesting coverage of the recall. Laurie Roberts wrote that “a recall election isn’t like a regular election where a Republican nominee faces a Democrat… Recall organizers will surely look for a fellow Republican to run against Arpaio… Split the Republican vote and Arpaio is gone”.

Well, fair enough, I guess. Then she goes on “then again, never underestimate the sneakiness of certain Republican operatives. I imagine they’re out there, even now, scouring the county in search of a spoiler or two…”

Wait a second here. How come it’s just good political strategizing when the recall organizers arrange to “split the Republican vote” but it’s “sneakiness” on the part of “operatives” blah, blah, negative, negative when Arpaio supporters potentially do the EXACT SAME THING.

I’m guessing it was probably unintentional on Laurie’s part. Even more evidence of how one-sided all the reporting is on this issue.

• Justice for peons
• Brewer’s Medicaid proposal is conservative? Really?
• Just for something different, follow the law

Patterson is the volunteer chairman of the Goldwater Institute and past chairman of the Arizona Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He has served on several community boards, including Goodwill of Central Arizona, Diamondbacks Foundation and Hospice of the Valley. He is the state chairman for Americans for Tax Reform. Previously, he served as the President of the Arizona Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council (public sector chair). He was the minority leader (91-92) and majority leader (93-96) of the Arizona Senate. He is a registered Republican but not politically active. In addition, he was the organizer and lead tenor of the original Arizona Singing Senators.

Tom Patterson's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/pattersontomc/

Richard Nixon (left) and John F. Kennedy debate in 1960

The presidential election of 1960 had some interesting “firsts”.  It was the first election that involved all 50 states as Hawaii and Alaska had joined the list in 1959. It also was first to have two sitting senators on the same ticket (Democrats John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson) while Kennedy became the first Catholic to be elected to the presidency.

Another “first” that had an influence on the election was the four Nixon-Kennedy televised debates.

Pre-election debates had not been that big a deal other than the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 in Illinois which drew large crowds even though the election was not even decided by popular vote.  Later, FDR turned down an invitation to debate with Wendell Wilkie in 1940 dismissing it as a “media stunt”.

However, by 1960 there were over 52 million television sets in the United States making TV an obvious and important outlet for political debates.  Republicans and Democrats recognized this so four debates were arranged for the fall of 1960 between Senator Kennedy and Republican Vice President/candidate Richard Nixon.

The first debate was about domestic issues and drew 70 million viewers along with a smaller audience that listened on the radio.

Radio listeners picked Nixon as the winner but the much larger TV audience picked Kennedy.  As far as substance, the candidates were considered about even.   However, this was an example of how much television counted as a cosmetic business even 50 years ago when most viewers were watching black and white sets with poor reception and smaller screens.  The TV audience got to hear AND see the candidates which gave Kennedy a large advantage.

Nixon either let his ego get in the way of common sense or else he dismissed the debate as meaningless.  He had injured his knee a month earlier and had spent a couple weeks in the hospital for treatment.  When he arrived for the debate he was emaciated looking, had ill fitting clothes, and refused makeup for his ever present five o’clock shadow.

Conversely, Kennedy, who was five years younger than Nixon, showed up tanned, healthy, rested, and ready for action.  When the debate began, Kennedy exhibited charisma, confidence, and a smooth delivery while Nixon appeared sickly and intimidated.  Needless to say, Kennedy won the night on TV where it counted the most and that carried over to the other debates.

There are those who think that Kennedy would have won the presidency anyway although 6% of voters said the debates were a factor in their candidate choice.  As it turned out the election was a squeaker with Kennedy winning 303 electoral votes to Nixon’s 219.  Kennedy won the popular vote by only 112,827 votes but lost 26 states.

Perhaps Nixon should have reconsidered using makeup for that first debate after all.

(Thanks to Erika Tyner Allen)

• MEMORIAL DAY SPECIAL: THE RED CROSS WOMEN OF WWII
• In Defense of neighborhood HOAs
• The Insanity of Political Correctness

Jim McAllister has been a Plugged-In Scottsdale blogger, an Arizona Republic Sunday Plugged-In contributor, and a Scottsdale Republic columnist since 2005. He has also written for the Sonoran News and did a weekly column from 2004-2006 for the Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Independent. In 2004 he wrote a 7 part series on The History of Television for TV TOME (now TV.Com). A veteran of the U. S. Air Force, he has done hosting and commercial work in radio and TV and currently does a blog at jmcallister.blogspot.com.

Jim McAllister's Website: http://mcallister.blogspot.com

Arizona State Senator Michele Reagan, rumored to be eyeing a run for Secretary of State, has proposed legislation not to bolster voter turnout but rather to make voting more complicated and cumbersome. This seems counter to what a Secretary of State, the overseer of elections, would desire and counter to the Republican Party’s mantra of protecting personal liberty and reducing needless regulation and big government.

Reagan’s proposed bill would make it a felony – yes, a felony – for anyone other than a family member or member of a household to turn in someone else’s ballot. In other words if a young woman was on her way to the polls and her boyfriend (who lives in a different household) asked if she could please turn in his completed and signed ballot, the woman could receive up to 2 ½ years in prison… for turning in said ballot. Democracy in action? I think not.

And how would this be enforced, you may ask? Sponsors of the bill are saying there will be no additional regulation required, but as it stands now, I don’t have to show any proof of who I am, not even a voter ID card, when I drop off a completed ballot or ballots at the polls. Considering that thousands of people drop off their mail-in ballots on election day, this would mean a huge backlog as election workers would now need to check not just the voters’ IDs but also the verification that the person turning in the ballot was qualified under law to do so.

And what’s to stop someone, or even a group, from continuing to collect ballots in advance of the election and simply mailing in those ballots? Are we going to turn our postal workers into elections officials to ensure this won’t happen?

This bill does not end needless regulation but rather creates it. Taking away a person’s right to hand over his/her signed and completed ballot to someone else does not extend personal liberty but rather inhibits it. Making it more difficult to cast a ballot does not embrace the democratic process but rather precludes it.

So why go to the trouble of creating a punishment for something that’s completely unnecessary and includes the possibility of jail time?

Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, this legislation is purely political. It stems from the last election and the efforts of two groups, Citizens for a Better Arizona and Adios Arpaio.

Besides signing up thousands of new, mainly Latino voters, CBA and Adios collected many of those ballots and turned them in to elections officials. They did this to remove any and all voting obstacles for lower-propensity and first-time voters, people who typically forget to vote or mail in their ballot on time.

Yes, these individuals could find a way to turn in their ballot themselves, but what harm is it for another individual or group to turn it in for them? If someone gives someone else permission to hand over his/her completed ballot, are we supposed to believe this is a crime worthy of a felony charge?

Senator Kimberly Yee summed up the political reasoning behind this bill when talking to Arizona Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl. She said she saw copies of the thousands of ballots dropped off at the polls by groups like CBA and Adios. She said that after seeing the box of ballots, “I know that voter fraud is real.”

That sounds to me like Senator Yee is suggesting these groups didn’t just collect ballots but actually forged them. That’s a very damning and in my opinion, libelous statement. Does she have any proof whatsoever to back her claim? If so, why are we not hearing about any investigations by the Secretary of State?

Voter fraud is a serious crime and one that is already punishable by law so clearly, this proposed bill is about something entirely different. It’s about muting the voices and interests of those who differ from legislators such as Senators Yee and Reagan.

Anyone who truly cares about “freedom” and “liberty” should be especially concerned when legislators pass laws intended to suppress the voices of its citizens, regardless of whether or not those citizens agree with said legislators.

• DiCiccio’s Distortions
• Killing solar, all in the name of principle
• Does “pro-life” extend beyond the womb?

The story behind this blog begins in 2007 when, on an ordinary September morning, my world was unexpectedly smashed to pieces. A drugged-up gang banger with multiple arrests and outstanding warrants crossed my husband’s path. As my husband and his partner attempted to arrest him, he pulled a gun and shot my husband twice in the back of the head. The murder of a Phoenix police officer is big news. Bigger still is the fact that this happened at the hands of a previously deported illegal immigrant in a border state rife with contentious immigration battles. As I listened to the politicians and pundits spin my husband’s death to further their interests, my journalism background came into focus and I found myself doing my own research into the causes and possible solutions to our nation’s immigration problems. I also gained an awareness of what it was like to be on the opposite side of the lens. I had been a member of the media, and now my family was the subject of the story. When I went public with my views on immigration, I was drawn even further into the political web of Arizona politics, and though I shied away for a time, I felt I could no longer be silent. And so I created this blog, my editorial on the challenges facing our state and our nation. My expectation is that it will be used as a source of reasoned debate to elevate our discussions in a thoughtful and informed manner while seeking solutions to complex problems. I hope the differing opinions expressed by myself and others will both challenge and motivate individuals to work for the greater good.

Julie Erfle's Website: http://politicsuncuffed.com/

Truman holds the famous incorrect “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN”
headline in the Chicago Tribune following the 1948 presidential election.

I will always remember November 3, 1948.  It was the post World War II era and I had just turned seven years old in March of that year.  I didn’t know much about politics; I was too busy collecting returnable pop bottles to buy important stuff like popsicles and banana flips.

However, on that fateful election night, I remember my dad being excited as he thought his Republicans would finally defeat the dreaded Democratic political machine that was Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Roosevelt had died in April, 1945 so Vice President Truman had to finish the president’s final three years in office after FDR’s win over New York Governor Thomas Dewey in 1944.  FDR had won easily in ’44 with 432 electoral votes to Dewey’s 99 but Truman was considered vulnerable in 1948 after following the charismatic Roosevelt.

Once again the Republicans trotted out Thomas Dewey as their candidate feeling that although he was dominated four years earlier he would probably be able to beat Truman.  The polls, Life magazine, and the New York Times agreed and predicted a Dewey win.  To make matters even worse for Harry, he was battling his own party over legislation to guarantee rights to blacks plus a 1948 Gallup poll showed that only 36% of the country thought he was doing a good job.

It looked like Dewey would coast to an easy win but he made the fatal mistake of reading his own headlines and becoming a bit too comfortable.  While Truman was heavily beating the bushes for votes, Dewey’s laid back campaign combined with an air of superiority eventually became unpleasant to voters compared to the outspoken pitch of the Missourian.

As Election Day approached, Truman had narrowed Dewey’s lead but was still behind.  Most of the press and the polls still discounted any chance for a Truman victory.

The stage was now set as my dad and I settled in on the couch in Cincinnati next to the big Stromberg-Carlson radio awaiting the great election news that we now had President Dewey.  Since I was seven I wasn’t quite sure what was going on but I got an idea of it as the evening passed and my dad’s optimism faded.  Truman was the winner collecting 303 electoral votes to Dewey’s 189.

Looking back, I have to hand it to Harry.  He was an outgoing “man of the people” and a likable guy who inspired the saying “Give ‘em hell, Harry.”  Dewey was more serious and exhibited a sternness that was not particularly appealing.  I guess being a district attorney in New York City could have contributed to that.

I was living in Kansas City in 1972 when Harry died on the day after Christmas at age 88.  He had been holding on for a few weeks during which time we were kept on constant alert about his condition.  He was immensely popular in his home state for his never give up attitude.

• MEMORIAL DAY SPECIAL: THE RED CROSS WOMEN OF WWII
• In Defense of neighborhood HOAs
• The Insanity of Political Correctness

Jim McAllister has been a Plugged-In Scottsdale blogger, an Arizona Republic Sunday Plugged-In contributor, and a Scottsdale Republic columnist since 2005. He has also written for the Sonoran News and did a weekly column from 2004-2006 for the Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Independent. In 2004 he wrote a 7 part series on The History of Television for TV TOME (now TV.Com). A veteran of the U. S. Air Force, he has done hosting and commercial work in radio and TV and currently does a blog at jmcallister.blogspot.com.

Jim McAllister's Website: http://mcallister.blogspot.com

Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, whom I’m told is “moderate”, has gubernatorial aspirations. Which is why you’re seeing him more in the news these days than you’d expect to see the mayor of Mesa. And he’s very eager to have you see things like this:

Mesa Mayor Scott Smith has joined the Campaign to Fix the Debt as a campaign steering committee member. Smith, who is the incoming president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, will help lead the bipartisan group’s efforts to “find a practical solution that will help build the new American economy,” he said in a press release.

“Mayors know what it’s like to face a ‘fiscal cliff’ as they faced their own financial crisis years ago,” Mayor Smith said. “Mayors from both parties demonstrated how it is possible to balance budgets, reduce debts, while creating economic growth that adds jobs. They made the tough decisions, and our cities are both stronger financially and ready to take advantage of opportunities for growth. Washington can, and should, do the same to fix our nation’s financial challenges.“

More information on the campaign can be found at www.fixthedebt.org.

That is clearly a press release, uncritically reprinted in the East Valley Tribune. And who is behind this Campaign to Fix the Debt outfit? You will be shocked (shocked!) to learn that it’s none other than Peter G. Peterson, the guy I featured in my last post who philanthropically puts piles of his own money into the important cause of starving grannies. Here are HuffPo’s Christina Wilkie and Ryan Grim reporting
on the Campaign’s background and major players.

The companies represented by executives working with the Campaign To Fix The Debt have received trillions in federal war contracts, subsidies and bailouts, as well as specialized tax breaks and loopholes that virtually eliminate the companies’ tax bills.

The CEOs are part of a campaign run by the Peter Peterson-backed Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, which plans to spend at least $30 million pushing for a deficit reduction deal in the lame-duck session and beyond.

During the past few days, CEOs belonging to what the campaign calls its CEO Fiscal Leadership Council — most visibly, Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein and Honeywell’s David Cote — have barnstormed the media, making the case that the only way to cut the deficit is to severely scale back social safety-net programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — which would disproportionately impact the poor and the elderly.

As part of their push, they are advocating a “territorial tax system” that would exempt their companies’ foreign profits from taxation, netting them about $134 billion in tax savings, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies titled “The CEO Campaign to ‘Fix’ the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks” — money that could help pay off the federal budget deficit.

Yet the CEOs are not offering to forgo federal money or pay a higher tax rate, on their personal income or corporate profits. Instead, council recommendations include cutting “entitlement” programs, as well as what they call “low-priority spending.”

Wow. Low priority spending. That’s Grandma’s grocery money, or her ability to not have to live in squalor in a substandard nursing home. So yeah, grannies gotta starve but not a precious hair on defense spending will be touched, while (naturally) the Job Creators^TM get yet more generous tax breaks. This is a “bipartisan” effort with several high profile Dems (ugh) on board too, so it further helps a guy like Scott Smith look moderate and pragmatic. But the reality is that this is a radical movement bent on shifting the tax burden onto working people and demolishing the social safety net. The really fiendish thing about this is that if Smith runs for Governor of Arizona, he’s not likely to be asked about Social Security. He’ll simply use his participation in the Campaign to Fix the Debt to posture about how Very Serious he is and not like those crazy Republicans.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

This editorial appeared in Saturday’s AZ Republic. Nomiki Konst was a candidate for Congress in CD2 (Ron Barber’s seat) and claims she was “pushed out” of the race.

In a year when Democrats triumphed against the odds, Arizona Democrats blew it.

President Barack Obama built an historic victory by continuing the construction of a coalition of new voters. Nationally, Republicans lost because they didn’t get this message — but neither did the Arizona Democratic Party.

It’s time to quash a widespread lie: Arizona is not a red state. Just like neighboring Western blue states, libertarian Republicans are being replaced by a new socially liberal and fiscally conservative voter.

Yet Republicans continuously rule and Democrats make excuses: Hispanics don’t vote; youth are apathetic; redistricting is biased.

As a former congressional candidate stepping toward a noose that could kill my political career, I’m challenging the Arizona Democratic Party to drop the excuses and change their approach.

The party, as far as I’m concerned, has one duty: to grow. This year, with demographics in party leaders’ favor, they failed.

They ran ineffective messaging, had weak organizational strategies and backed establishment candidates early on.

Oh here we go again. I’d like for one of these people to explain to me what, exactly, the AZ GOP is doing so well, given how their organization is constantly broke, in disarray, and at each other’s throats. When was the last time they had a state committee meeting that didn’t descend into a chaotic bloodbath? If the Republican Party here has a compelling message, I have yet to see or hear it. I’d also like to see what data Ms. Konst has to support her contention that “libertarian Republicans are being replaced by a new socially liberal and fiscally conservative voter” in Arizona. The “fiscally conservative” part doesn’t seem to jive with Obama’s national reelection, since his voters obviously rejected the Romney/Ryan economic plan. As with all of these screeds about ineffectual AZ Dems, Konst provides no concrete examples of what she believes is a winning message or set of policy positions.

Democrats lost opportunities to pick up a U.S. Senate seat and barely won its congressional — not because the state is Republican leaning. Instead, because they couldn’t engage voters, which is their job. We should be winning new seats, not defending seats already in our favor.

There were opportunities to expand our base in a state shifting our way, yet leaders played it safe. We could excite these voters through bold organizing and new candidates, yet the party ignores fresh ideas.

By investing resources in status quo candidates, the party embraces an Arizona of the past — the Republican Arizona.

Look at party leadership — the faces haven’t changed in 30 years. And they cling to that 30-year-old perspective from Arizona’s old Republican days.

The hapless Dem organization in 2012 also took the GOP supermajority in both houses of the state legisature away and elected a record number of pro-choice women. Yes, there were some terrible losses, such as the Corporation Commission. But again, if electoral results are purely the result of party effectiveness and organizing what, exactly, did the Arizona Republican Party do that was so engaging to voters in the Corp Comm race? People who actually paid close attention to that race attribute the GOP victories to large independent expenditures by energy companies hostile to Arizona’s renewable energy standard. Citizens United? What Citizens United? Perhaps I’m mistaken, though. Maybe the Dems should have abandoned incumbent Commissioners Sandra Kennedy and Paul Newman, along with new candidate Marcia Busching (who was well-spoken, highly qualified for the position, and a hard worker) in favor of other people. Maybe that race would have turned out differently. Doubtful.

Also – “Look at party leadership — the faces haven’t changed in 30 years. And they cling to that 30-year-old perspective from Arizona’s old Republican days.” Huh? There’s actually regular turnover in party leadership, and plenty of new faces in leadership positions all over the state. Really, we don’t just reelect Morris Udall’s corpse as state chair every 2 years.

This Tammany Hall strategy — running closed campaigns with insider candidates — does not reflect the voters Democrats represent. This is why the party is losing membership to that new independent bloc.

I agree that Democrats need to increase registration numbers. I argued just that in a recent blog post. But oh lord, Tammany Hall? Please, if the Democrats in this state were led by cigar chomping political bosses handing out jobs and favors to ward heelers, we would not even be having this conversation. Dems would be running this joint. The reality is that the party is an organization comprised largely of volunteers, with few full-time staffers. Officers are democratically elected, at the state level by state committee members, and at the county and district level by PCs. But the perception that there are unaccountable and all-powerful “party bosses” running the Democratic Party here persists with armchair critics and even some journalists.

I saw this unabashed old boys attitude up close.

Pima County party chairman Jeff Rogers took tips from the GOP’s playbook when he said, “Sweetie, start at school board.” (How appropriate for a single woman sans children!)

I then reasoned how new candidates (like myself) could excite beyond our traditional base, but Mr. Rogers probably didn’t hear me as he mumbled something about “youth” while abruptly walking across the room to fax something.

Ugh. If Rogers behaved in such a sexist and condescending manner, that is completely unacceptable. But the suggestion itself – to run for lower office – if made respectfully, is a perfectly reasonable one and something I would say to anyone with no political experience or significant community ties presenting themselves at party HQ wanting to run for Congress in a winnable district that already had a very viable candidate. It’s worth noting that Konst does not acknowledge Ron Barber’s November general election victory in CD2.

They weren’t open to discuss much else, either. Like why their only message was aimed at scaring older “reliable” voters — ignoring 76 percent of constituents.

State party chairman Bill Roe never even read my biography or answered my calls when I declared candidacy. And when I greeted him at the Democratic National Convention (I’m on the DNC Council), he thought I was an intern.

Where is Konst getting this “76% of constituents” figure? And what is a “DNC Council”? The Democratic National Committee has several of them. It’s great that Konst is on one but why should the state chair know who she is because of that?

Sadly, I’ve heard similar stories from other new candidates who were ignored, discouraged and mocked by their own party. Not to mention stories from staffers forced to leave Arizona for better campaign opportunities. Supporters were even threatened to abandon my campaign for defying the party.

Supporters were threatened with what? By whom? Mocked and discouraged? Who cares? No one can stop a registered Democrat in Arizona from running for office. If you get enough valid signatures, you are on the ballot. You are free to raise money and recruit volunteers. What you are not is automatically entitled to the support and limited resources of the party. If you’re a brand new candidate running for a big office, such as Congress, it helps if you’ve raised a fair amount of money in the exploratory phase or can self-fund. It helps if you’ve courted the support of a lot of Democratic and/or community activists in the district. Lacking those things, you are probably not going to get very far at the state or county party with your bold ideas. This is something you should know before you sashay into party headquarters demanding support. Sorry, they’re not obligated to help you fulfill your dreams. This is not a rejection of new ideas or fresh thinking. It’s a practical consideration. Contributions to political parties are not tax-deductible and the people who make them are generally not interested in funding speculative ventures.

That’s not a strategy for growing the party. Which is my point.

We can learn from this election. Americans yearn for courageous leaders.

Note how other states boldly elected Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator, or disabled veteran Tammy Duckworth to Congress. Or how our own Kyrsten Sinema defied status quo, proving that dynamic leaders excite Arizonans.

Arizona can be a model for American progress. While the party establishment pushed me out of my race, I urge others to challenge status quo and run. We need you.

The Arizona electorate has entered the 21st century. When will the Arizona Democratic Party do the same?

Tammy Baldwin has been a member of Congress in Wisconsin since 1999. Tammy Duckworth was a high-profile activist for disabled veterans for years and had run for Congress in Illinois unsuccessfully in 2006. She was appointed Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs by President Obama before she ran again in 2012. Our own Kyrsten Sinema served in the state legislature since 2005 and was in leadership. She supported and mentored a lot of up-and-coming Democrats over the years. Dynamism and proving one’s mettle with the party faithful are not mutually incompatible things. It’s also typical to lose an election or two before you win one.

Honestly, the only reason I even care about the griping of a candidate who withdrew of her own volition is that the Republic chose to give her unsubstantiated assertions prominent placement and a picture byline. My friend Steve of AZ Eagletarian has a good post on it, in which he echoes some of my impressions of Konst’s piece and questions the paper’s decision to run it.

Apart from analysis of what Konst wrote, I have to wonder why the Arizona Republic decided to publish Konst’s op-ed. On the surface, one possibility is that they saw it as an opportunity to bolster the paper’s bona fides with its conservative subscriber base. Because it seems obvious that the GOP would relish the thought of turmoil and division among Arizona Democrats, and the potential for this letter to the editor to cause tension certainly is pretty high also.

Of course, the Republic MIGHT have had altruistic motives and simply wanted to give Arizona Democrats the chance to change our ineffective ways. Hmmm… right.

Yeah, I think the Republic simply printed this thing because it was so provocative!

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

If this last election taught us anything, it’s that Latinos cannot be ignored. They matter. As the fastest expanding minority group in the country, they have and will continue to have an important role in this country’s elections.

That means Republicans need Latinos. Democrats need Latinos. America needs Latinos.

And what is it that Latinos want? The same thing most Americans want: good paying jobs, an excellent and affordable education, and a chance to achieve the American dream.

It isn’t all about immigration reform, and yet, it is immigration reform that drove the conversation this past election and will continue to drive the conversation until reform is finally implemented.

No, most Latinos are NOT undocumented. But many Latinos do know someone who is undocumented, and almost all Latinos know what it means to be the subject of doubt, the one who is most likely to be pulled over and asked for proof of citizenship. They know what it means to be categorized as “illegal.” They know what it means to be hated simply for the color of their skin.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a new concept in this country. Black Americans, Asian Americans and Native Americans have and continue to feel the sting of racism, of doubt, of less-than full integration into a white-dominated culture.

But now, more than ever before, Latinos have at their fingertips the makings of a perfect storm. With Black Americans deserting the Republican Party, the GOP is struggling to find a way to hold on to this crucial minority, and they know immigration reform may be the only way to do so.

In the coming weeks, Arizonans will have an opportunity to be at the forefront of a major immigration reform movement. Business leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement officials, and others will soon unveil a plan to move this state and this country forward. How Arizona’s politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, respond to this initiative will set the stage for the future of both parties.

It is an exciting time to be in Arizona. The world will be watching us. Let’s hope this time we find a way to crawl out from the ashes of embarrassment and rise above our racist image as a state ready to lead.

• DiCiccio’s Distortions
• Killing solar, all in the name of principle
• Does “pro-life” extend beyond the womb?

The story behind this blog begins in 2007 when, on an ordinary September morning, my world was unexpectedly smashed to pieces. A drugged-up gang banger with multiple arrests and outstanding warrants crossed my husband’s path. As my husband and his partner attempted to arrest him, he pulled a gun and shot my husband twice in the back of the head. The murder of a Phoenix police officer is big news. Bigger still is the fact that this happened at the hands of a previously deported illegal immigrant in a border state rife with contentious immigration battles. As I listened to the politicians and pundits spin my husband’s death to further their interests, my journalism background came into focus and I found myself doing my own research into the causes and possible solutions to our nation’s immigration problems. I also gained an awareness of what it was like to be on the opposite side of the lens. I had been a member of the media, and now my family was the subject of the story. When I went public with my views on immigration, I was drawn even further into the political web of Arizona politics, and though I shied away for a time, I felt I could no longer be silent. And so I created this blog, my editorial on the challenges facing our state and our nation. My expectation is that it will be used as a source of reasoned debate to elevate our discussions in a thoughtful and informed manner while seeking solutions to complex problems. I hope the differing opinions expressed by myself and others will both challenge and motivate individuals to work for the greater good.

Julie Erfle's Website: http://politicsuncuffed.com/

What was it about Mitt Romney’s postelection comments that brought the bipartisan world down around his head? Romney simply pointed out that one of Obama’s electoral strengths was the many gifts, i.e. federal benefits Obama had bestowed upon grateful voters. Romney was absolutely correct on the facts. Means-tested welfare programs reached the magic trillion dollar mark this year. Federal welfare payments have increased 32% in Obama’s first term, including a 71% surge in food stamps spending. We now spend 60k in means tested programs for each family living in poverty. And that doesn’t even include middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare nor the especially unjustifiable billions that go to well-positioned crony capitalists. Americans may be offended to hear that so many of us are on the dole, but telling people exclusively what they want to hear hasn’t work very well for us, has it? Some people receiving benefits deserve them. And maybe Republicans do need to hone their message. But somebody had to say it. I say hurrah for Mitt!

• Justice for peons
• Brewer’s Medicaid proposal is conservative? Really?
• Just for something different, follow the law

Patterson is the volunteer chairman of the Goldwater Institute and past chairman of the Arizona Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He has served on several community boards, including Goodwill of Central Arizona, Diamondbacks Foundation and Hospice of the Valley. He is the state chairman for Americans for Tax Reform. Previously, he served as the President of the Arizona Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council (public sector chair). He was the minority leader (91-92) and majority leader (93-96) of the Arizona Senate. He is a registered Republican but not politically active. In addition, he was the organizer and lead tenor of the original Arizona Singing Senators.

Tom Patterson's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/pattersontomc/

Because someone close to me has taken a job at the Amazon plant in West Phoenix, I re-read this Mother Jones piece from last March by journalist Mac McClelland, who briefly took a job at a big shipping warehouse she calls “Amalgamated” and described some truly hellish and demeaning working conditions. It’s hard to decide which snippet of the article sufficiently captures the awfulness so I’ll pick one at random:

The days blend into each other. But it’s near the end of my third day that I get written up. I sent two of some product down the conveyor line when my scanner was only asking for one; the product was boxed in twos, so I should’ve opened the box and separated them, but I didn’t notice because I was in a hurry. With an hour left in the day, I’ve already picked 800 items. Despite moving fast enough to get sloppy, my scanner tells me that means I’m fulfilling only 52 percent of my goal. A supervisor who is a genuinely nice person comes by with a clipboard listing my numbers. Like the rest of the supervisors, she tries to create a friendly work environment and doesn’t want to enforce the policies that make this job so unpleasant. But her hands are tied. She needs this job, too, so she has no choice but to tell me something I have never been told in 19 years of school or at any of some dozen workplaces.”You’re doing really bad,” she says.

I’ll admit that I did start crying a little. Not at work, thankfully, since that’s evidently frowned upon, but later, when I explained to someone over Skype that it hurts, oh, how my body hurts after failing to make my goals despite speed-walking or flat-out jogging and pausing every 20 or 30 seconds to reach on my tiptoes or bend or drop to the floor for 10.5 hours, and isn’t it awful that they fired Brian because he had a baby, and, in fact, when I was hired I signed off on something acknowledging that anyone who leaves without at least a week’s notice—whether because they’re a journalist who will just walk off or because they miss a day for having a baby and are terminated—has their hours paid out not at their hired rate but at the legal minimum. Which in this state, like in lots of states, is about $7 an hour. Thank God that I (unlike Brian, probably) didn’t need to pay for opting into Amalgamated’s “limited” health insurance program. Because in my 10.5-hour day I’ll make about $60 after taxes.

This is the new normal, as desperate people are forced to take low-paying jobs where they are treated like dirt. These workers are among the “47 percent” that Mitt Romney famously derided at that fundraiser in Florida attended by wealthy Job CreatorsTM. A lot of the people doing this grueling, stressful, and dangerous labor while being humiliated by supervisors are undoubtedly receiving some kind of public assistance since their paltry wages are not sufficient to support themselves and their families. This puts them instantly in the class of people known as “takers” to conservatives.

It’s the end because we now have more than 50% of the electorate demanding that the other 49% give them stuff. We now have more takers than wealth creators and they continue to vote themselve(sic) a lifestyle that they are unwilling to earn.

Polling and research after the 2012 election showed that Obama won overwhelmingly among the following groups: Blacks, Latinos, single women/single moms, gays, lesbians, and young people. What do those groups have in common? They all have bought the tripe that they are victims, that the United States of America is “not fair.”

Spoiler alert: The linked essay is a load of whiny, bigoted nonsense. But the writer is definitely not alone in imagining there are two discrete groups of Americans – one of which (mostly white males) does all the work and the other of which (mostly minorities and single women) gets “free stuff” for nothing. The Romney campaign really pushed it, knowing that the welfare myth is even more powerful and deeply emotionally entrenched in the minds of many middle and upper class voters today than it was 30 years ago. I have found it to be utterly resistant to factual arguments and demands for consistency (you know, like asking how they defend government assistance they personally enjoy). Recently, Mark and I were at a party at the home of a couple we are friends with and as the evening waned some of us drifted out to the back patio to chat and smoke cigars. Our hosts were Democrats but they run with an affluent and mostly Republican crowd. This was a few days after the first Presidential debate so naturally the conversation turned to the election. Naturally, the general consensus was that Obama’s first term was a veritable avalanche of socialism. Y’all know I was in there doing my best to rebut their lame Fox News talking points while fully realizing that any effort to persuade them they’re wrong is futile. But I am constitutionally incapable of letting what I know to be b.s. go unchallenged.

I ended up getting into a long, and frustrating, debate with a prosperous looking fellow claimed that he didn’t vote Republican all the time but when he did it was on “the economy”. A bit of probing on my part revealed that he is “economically conservative” for the same reason 95% or more of people I encounter who identify as such are. Not because of marginal tax rates or monetary policy or the bond market or anything like that. You guessed it – it’s because of welfare. I learned that the guy voted Republican because he believed half the country was on welfare. I asked for some substantiation of that and he cited something he read about the number of people on food stamps. After I facepalmed, I tried to explain to him that a lot of households getting foodstamps are headed by low wage workers, who toil at places like the mail-order warehouses described above or Walmart or McDonalds. This seemed not to phase him at all. He went on to describe his grand plan to rescue the US economy, which was this: A five year lifetime limit on all public assistance. The problem, he explained, was that food stamps and Medicaid were sapping the resolve of low-skilled workers to better themselves. The knowledge that the gubmint gravy train would come to an abrupt halt would inspire fast food workers to enroll in community college or trade school to train for better jobs. I asked him how that would work for people with kids who can barely afford childcare let alone college classes and more childcare while they’re in class. What if the person suffered a major illness or injury? Also, what if the person did get the training but no high-skilled job materialized? None of this mattered. He was on a roll. The five year limit would create – wait for it – bootstraps! Yes, he actually got so animated in discussing his great idea that he made the motion of pulling up imaginary bootstraps from his expensive leather shoes. I asked him if what he thought would happen to workers who had exceeded their five year limit, still worked at a low wage job, and still needed help with groceries and health care. He shrugged it off. “Oh well!” “So they can just go ahead and die, then?”, I asked. “Not my problem!”, he replied. (Stuff like this is why I try to avoid socializing with conservatives. I know we’re supposed to be civil and try to build bridges and all but there’s only so much my blood pressure can take.)

I relate this anecdote because the memory of Bootstrap Man’s patio pontificating struck me as I re-read McClelland’s piece on her warehouse experience. I don’t consider public assistance to be an adequate substitute for the wage gains workers have been cheated out of for decades nor does it mitigate the shocking, and increasing, level of workplace abuse. But our meager social safety net is the only thing keeping the vast majority of us from utter ruin. Always remember that the reason so many wealthy and wannabe wealthy conservatives want to abolish it has little to nothing to do with the deficit or taxation. They want massive economic inequality and workers so servile and desperate they will literally die for their jobs or conveniently die when they’re no longer useful. Can’t have a bunch of lazy moochers laying around.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

At least to some, according to an article in today’s paper (you can read it here).

The story, “Arizona election adds to debate over redistricting,” has several Republicans up in arms over their losses in Congressional and legislative races.

All of the seats up for grabs were won by small margins in districts that had more or less even splits in voter makeup.

But here’s my question:  Why is competition bad?

I guess we’re just supposed to suppose that seats are safe for one party or the other.  But does that make it safe for us?

After all, let’s look at our congressional delegation headed to Washington:

The only ones who have pressure to be moderates are the newcomers, all of whom won by relatively narrow margins.

The message to Sinema, Barber (not really a newcomer, but close), and Kirkpatrick (who’s new for this term but has been there before) is this:  Find solutions and don’t let ideology dominate your votes.

With all three in swing districts, competitive districts, if they choose to emulate folks like Congressmen Raul Grijalva or Trent Franks, they could quickly find themselves out of a job in two years.

Guys and gals in so-called “safe” districts really have no motivation to compromise and work towards solutions.  When was the last time Ed Pastor or David Schweikert or Raul Grijalva or Trent Franks were noticed for working with the other side to find solutions to the Big Problems facing our country?

Nope, the outrage over competitive districts should be music to our ears.  We need more competition and less safety for our pols, even if it makes them, gulp, work with the other party once in office.

No, strike that:  Especially if it makes them work with the other party.

• Did Jeff Flake lie or just deceive?
• Make it rain: The Scandals keep on coming . . . sort of
• Jodi Arias Trial: Everyone’s 15 minutes of fame

Mike McClellan has lived in Arizona since 1967 where he attended high school and the University of Arizona. McClellan taught high school English for 36 years, including 30 years at at Dobson High School in Mesa. He has been a contributing columnist to both the East Valley Republic editions and the East Valley Tribune.

Mike McClellan's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/mikemcclellansblog/

As a candidate for mayor of Toledo, I ran as a Republican in a sea of Democrats. I ran as a Republican because I totally bought into the right-wing rhetoric that it was the unions who were destroying my hometown. I remember standing outside in the freezing rain, watching in horror as factory after factory closed up shop. Toledo Metal Furniture and Champion Spark Plug, come to mind. I now know that I was duped.

What is happening to Hostess, by Bain Capitol-like vultures, is the cause of the decimation of urban centers like Toledo — not unions.

Last month I went back for a visit of my hometown. What I saw was shocking. Toledo is not in a recession, she is in a depression. Thank God Romney was lying about Jeep closing.
…

Yes, we now live in a world where “profit is king.” But no worries, Hostess was able to peal away their pension obligations in order to make this type of union busting more lucrative for the next buyer of this once great company, leaving U.S. taxpayers holding the bag. With each plant closing in urban America, it’s becoming crystal clear who stole the American Dream, and it’s not the union worker making $20 an hour.

I wish I knew about this when I was running for Mayor!

• GOP Voter Fraud Rampant in Arizona
• And the winner is ….
• Yes on Open, Non-Partisan Primaries in AZ

Paula Pennypacker has been a conservative and independent political activist since 1990. She is the founder and president of Scottsdale-based Just for Redheads Beauty Products. A registered Republican, Paula is neither an ideologue nor a zealot. She is a broad-minded independent thinker with conservative economic beliefs and practical political ideas. She is interested in uniting, not dividing. Born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, Paula was a popular political radio show host and a Republican candidate for mayor before relocating her business to Arizona in 1998. She lives in Scottsdale with her husband and 12-year-old son. Paula’s personal and political motto -- "Only those who dare!" -- epitomizes the way she lives her life and conducts herself politically. She is not afraid to stand up to established or entrenched views and interests, even in her own party. Her signature political issues are ending the war on drugs, ending welfare as we know it, tax and immigration reform, and weeding out waste and corruption in government. She recently finished third in the 2010 primary election for state representative in District 8. Website: www.occupywashingtongrassrootscoalition.com

Paula Pennypacker's Website: http://www.paulapennypacker.com

We heard a lot about the “makers” and “takers” in the recent election.  Republican after Republican divided the country into “job creators” and everyone else. 

To use Mitt Romney’s inartful and revealing calculation, 47% of the country are takers, sucking the makers dry.

Well, like so much of his calculations, that one wasn’t true, either.  A recent TIME article notes that since the recovery began, the top 1% have earned 90% of the total income. 

Seems that the “makers” are taking just fine. 

Which suggests that they could easily withstand the 4 percent tax increase the President has proposed.

Of course, the hardest hardas . . . er, intransigents on the Right are holding firm to no new taxes as we approach the cliff.

But I wonder how they justify that, given that their beloved one percenters are raking in the moolah during this recovery.

• Did Jeff Flake lie or just deceive?
• Make it rain: The Scandals keep on coming . . . sort of
• Jodi Arias Trial: Everyone’s 15 minutes of fame

Mike McClellan has lived in Arizona since 1967 where he attended high school and the University of Arizona. McClellan taught high school English for 36 years, including 30 years at at Dobson High School in Mesa. He has been a contributing columnist to both the East Valley Republic editions and the East Valley Tribune.

Mike McClellan's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/mikemcclellansblog/

Today is Nov. 19, and Arizona is still counting ballots 13 days after the election.

But we have our answers. It looks like Arizona will have a Republican senator, Jeff Flake,  over Latino Richard Carmona. The Secretary of State’s office says Flake leads former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona statewide by 41,440 votes.

Maricopa County will continue with Sheriff Joe Arpaio as its chief law enforce — the  latest tally of uncounted ballots from the Maricopa County Recorder has Arpaio leading rival Paul Penzone by 84,259 votes. 

Barring some dramatic electoral event, there’s just no way Penzone can win. I’m not  sure exactly how many ballots are left to count — two days ago, about 67,000 uncounted ballots remained to be tallied statewide.

My guess is perhaps 40,000 uncounted ballots left to go.

Penzone has lost. The Carmona-Flake race has narrowed.

• An Arizona Journalist’s Gratitude
• In Cold Blood: The NRA, Arizona and Guns
• Los Cenzontles: Talent, Heart and Amazing Music

Journalist Terry Greene Sterling has lived in Arizona most of her life, and has reported on the political brawls and human tragedies that have long made Arizona the focus of national news. She was raised on an Arizona cattle ranch, and learned to speak Spanish at the same time she learned English. The author of Illegal, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone, Sterling has been honored with more than 50 national and regional journalism awards. She was named Virg Hill Journalist of the Year, Arizona’s highest journalism honor, three times. She was a staff writer for Phoenix New Times for 14 years before branching out on her own. She is a contributor for The Daily Beast, and Writer-in-Residence at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Her work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Newsweek.com, Salon.com, Rollingstone.com, The Nieman Narrative Digest, Phoenix Magazine, The Arizona Republic, Arizona Highways, High Country News, and Preservation Magazine. She tweets @tgsterling and blogs about immigration in Arizona at terrygreenesterling.com.

Terry Greene Sterling's Website: http://www.terrygreenesterling.com/

Is there anyone else out there who is tired of being taken for an idiot?

  Here’s how I see that it went down.

  The president made a bad policy decision and it went south. He lost an ambassador and three other brave Americans because he wanted to reduce the American “footprint” in Libya. The decision – the policy – was made to reduce the size of the security team in Libya, even in the face of stepped up operations by al Qaeda. The problem, of course, was that al Qaeda had been defeated – he had said so numerous times during the campaign – so a well planned, organized and executed attack by a “defeated” enemy might cause an electorate to question other claims made during a tight election campaign.

  In the meantime, the president’s CIA Director (a potential future war-hero presidential candidate) is having what he thought was a secret sex tryst with his biographer (and Reserve Officer Lt. Colonel in Intelligence). Unfortunately the trystee was jealous of a friend and acquaintance of the Director, fearing that she was a wannabe trystee, vying for the Director’s affections. Said competitor, however, was probably more interested in using her friendship with the Director to convince a company seeking to do business in South Korea that her friendship with the Director was worth $80 million to said company seeking a contract with South Korea worth billions. Long story made short, a few nasty e-mails later and, yada yada, the Director’s indiscretion is no longer secret to his boss.

  The plot thickens. Within hours of the attack, and the assassination, on the consulate – an internationally recognized act of war by a “defeated” al Qaeda – the Director knows that the attack was carried out by al Qaeda and affiliates. Even the Libyan president made a public declaration confirming the obvious. But the Libyan president wasn’t running for re-election….and the Director was having a “secret” affair. With the election looking very close, it was much more convenient if the attack was carried out by an outraged Islamic mob, angry over a video made by an American exercising his First Amendment rights. Somehow, after writing up his report detailing al Qaeda responsibility for the attack and dispersing it to the National Security Director, the other intelligence agencies, the State Department, Justice Department and the Whitehouse, the conclusion and mention of al Qaeda as the perpetrator of the attack disappeared from the report and the video story replaced it.

  Then, strangely, three days after the attack, the Director, who now claims, under oath, that he never wavered from his conclusion that al Qaeda planned and executed the attack, told a congressional committee in a “briefing” (not under oath) that it was, indeed, a mob action, thus sparing his boss – and holder of the “secret” – the embarrassment of having to admit, just before a tight election, that he might have been over-exuberant concerning the demise of a very dangerous terrorist organization.

  Unfortunately, for the Director, his boss won the election, now needed to get out from under the spiraling-out-of-control lie and threw the Director under the bus. His services were no longer needed, he was publicly disgraced and his potential danger to the president’s party as a candidate was destroyed along with his reputation.

  Now, few people in this country ever truly believed that the assassination was anything but a terrorist attack on our country. Oh, sure, the bulk of the media pretended it was true, but they were committed to the re-election of the man they had built in 2008. But the election is over. You won, guys! So please! Stop campaigning. And spare me the indignity of treating me like an idiot. Admit to the screw-up. Apologize to the people for being dishonest and then fix the problem instead of burying it. If Ambassador Stevens died for anything, it should be that future ambassadors won’t be left out in the cold.

• Non-war
• “Circle the wagons!”
• There are lies and then there are damned lies

Jim was born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona, went to Phoenix Union HS until joining USMC at 17, graduated from San Diego Evening HS during enlistment and graduated with BS at ASU after marriage and 3 kids. He started private work career as a Teamster, moved to management and spent his entire career in the freight business before retiring in Camp Verde, AZ.

Jim Barber's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/jimbarber-0/

 
President Obama won re-election in a landslide of electoral
votes but with a rather slim popular vote of less than 3 million spread across
the country. Now he says he wants to unify the country in a spirit of
bipartisanship.

I want to believe him. I wish I could believe him. If I recall, he made these same statements in both his acceptance
speech at the 2008 Democrat convention and on the night that he won the election
in 2008.

In 2009, with both Houses of Congress firmly in
his back pocket to begin packaging his Affordable Care Act, and in a spirit of
bipartisanship, he told the Republicans in Congress to take a seat at the back
of the bus because he didn’t need them. Obamacare was crafted entirely by
Democrats and passed without a single Republican vote. To continue in the
bipartisan vein, he began a concentrated campaign to divide the country along
every conceivable fault line he could find – or invent – including race, gender,
party affiliation and economic status. “Fairness” was his watchword.

But what did he mean by “fair?” With the
country wallowing in
recession, bumping along the bottom
in a stagnant economy with the U-6 unemployment rate (unemployed, underemployed, part-time wanting full-time and those who have stopped searching) near 15 percent, the
president was asked an interesting question. “If you knew that you could sign a
bill lowering taxes on the wealthy that would increase revenue and jobs, would
you sign it?”

After a pause, his answer was “No.” The
reason? It wouldn’t be fair.

So how far is the president
willing to go to be “fair?”

There isn’t an individual in
the country, with an IQ above 90, that does not understand the consequences of
“sequestration” – the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” that will take effect at
midnight, Dec.

31. With only small indications of a
possible recovery, if sequestration is allowed to happen, the sudden withdrawal
of half-a-trillion dollars from this economy will plunge us – and possibly,
Europe – into an economic trough. National corporations are already starting to
lay off or switch to part-time hiring only, in order to avoid the impending
costs of Obamacare.

They will be followed by thousands upon 
thousands more as money is withdrawn from both defense and domestic
spending. The tax increase due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, alone,
will stifle small business growth (3/4 of job producers).

The president said he is not wedded to any
single item of his tax plan, that he is open to new ideas to raise revenues. And
that is the hitch. Both the “Bowles/Simpson” committee and the Republicans in
Congress have laid out a path to higher revenues. But neither is new.

They have been on display for a couple of years
now. The Republicans have been willing to increase tax revenues through tax
reform and economic growth, wherein the wealthy will pay increasingly higher
taxes, the entire four years of this administration.

So,
will the president relent? Not if his past history, and quest for fairness, is
any indication. Some economists believe that he will go for the whole ball of
wax, regardless of the immediate danger to the economy. By letting sequestration
occur, the entirety of the Bush tax cuts will disappear. The president will have
gotten a huge tax increase without surrendering anything. If he feels at all
benevolent, he might let the worst of the cuts be reinstituted – the 2.5 percent
cut in the employee payroll tax which has guaranteed Social Security insolvency
much sooner. Regardless of how many more jobs are lost, it will be
“fair.”

Yes, I would like to believe the president –
even if his words were shaded slightly grey. But, if the word “fair” has been
the hallmark of his agenda, “honesty” has certainly not.

• Non-war
• “Circle the wagons!”
• There are lies and then there are damned lies

Jim was born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona, went to Phoenix Union HS until joining USMC at 17, graduated from San Diego Evening HS during enlistment and graduated with BS at ASU after marriage and 3 kids. He started private work career as a Teamster, moved to management and spent his entire career in the freight business before retiring in Camp Verde, AZ.

Jim Barber's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/jimbarber-0/

I’m completely addicted to updates on Arizona’s uncounted ballots. It’s worse than Words With Friends.

Today is Nov. 17, 11 days since we voted, and county officials are still counting ballots. Today, Richard Carmona edged up  ever so slightly towards Jeff Flake in the U.S. Senate race, and Paul Penzone inched a tiny bit closer to Joe Arpaio.

The counters will mostly  focus  on provisional ballots in the two most populous counties — Maricopa and PIma. Many Latinos, who are likely to vote against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, reported being forced to vote with provisional ballots.

Yesterday, there were about 136,000 ballots left to count. No word from officials on how many more were counted today.

However, enough votes were counted today for Republican fighter pilot Martha McSally to concede to former Giffords aide Ron Barber in Congressional District Two. Only a few votes left to count in Pima County, which trends Democrat. That would be good news for Carmona, who is favored in Pima County.

It looks like Carmona edged up slightly in Maricopa County, lessening Flake’s lead by 1,009 votes. It’s still a long shot — Flake leads by 78,249 votes.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is still beating Paul Penzone by 85,872 votes, but Penzone gained 907 votes today.

Long story short — today Democrats won another congressional seat and further counting of provisional-Latino ballots might tighten the Penzone-Arpaio and Flake-Carmona duels.

• An Arizona Journalist’s Gratitude
• In Cold Blood: The NRA, Arizona and Guns
• Los Cenzontles: Talent, Heart and Amazing Music

Journalist Terry Greene Sterling has lived in Arizona most of her life, and has reported on the political brawls and human tragedies that have long made Arizona the focus of national news. She was raised on an Arizona cattle ranch, and learned to speak Spanish at the same time she learned English. The author of Illegal, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone, Sterling has been honored with more than 50 national and regional journalism awards. She was named Virg Hill Journalist of the Year, Arizona’s highest journalism honor, three times. She was a staff writer for Phoenix New Times for 14 years before branching out on her own. She is a contributor for The Daily Beast, and Writer-in-Residence at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Her work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Newsweek.com, Salon.com, Rollingstone.com, The Nieman Narrative Digest, Phoenix Magazine, The Arizona Republic, Arizona Highways, High Country News, and Preservation Magazine. She tweets @tgsterling and blogs about immigration in Arizona at terrygreenesterling.com.

Terry Greene Sterling's Website: http://www.terrygreenesterling.com/

Today is Nov. 16, and we are 10 days past the election.

According to the Arizona Secretary of State, about 136,140 uncounted ballots remain uncounted.

Only Maricopa and Pima counties have uncounted ballots.

In Pima County, with 140 mail-in ballots and 12,000 provisional ballots left to count, former Gabby  Giffords aide Ron Barber, the incumbent, is inching ahead of Martha McSally, a Republican fighter pilot in a fight for Giffords’ former seat.

This is Barber’s second election in a matter of months — he beat Tea Partier Jesse Kelly in an earlier fight to complete Giffords’ term.

It looks as if Barber will now beat McSally — he’s leading by more than 1,000 votes and most  conservative votes are believed to have been counted.

Statewide, Jeff Flake, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, is beating Richard Carmona, the Democrat, by 79,528 votes.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio leads his challenger Paul Penzone by 86,779 points.

Could the tables turn?

There are still 109,000 ballots left to count in Maricopa County — of these  12,000 are mail-in and should favor conservatives, while 97,000 are provisional and should favor the Democrats.

Many Latinos who sought mail-in ballots were forced to vote provisional ballots because their mail in ballots did not arrive.

Democrats and voter-rights groups are biding their time, waiting to see the final count, loading up on horrible-voting-experience anecdotes, and swallowing their opinions about the efficiency of Arizona’s elections.

For now.

• An Arizona Journalist’s Gratitude
• In Cold Blood: The NRA, Arizona and Guns
• Los Cenzontles: Talent, Heart and Amazing Music

Journalist Terry Greene Sterling has lived in Arizona most of her life, and has reported on the political brawls and human tragedies that have long made Arizona the focus of national news. She was raised on an Arizona cattle ranch, and learned to speak Spanish at the same time she learned English. The author of Illegal, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone, Sterling has been honored with more than 50 national and regional journalism awards. She was named Virg Hill Journalist of the Year, Arizona’s highest journalism honor, three times. She was a staff writer for Phoenix New Times for 14 years before branching out on her own. She is a contributor for The Daily Beast, and Writer-in-Residence at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Her work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Newsweek.com, Salon.com, Rollingstone.com, The Nieman Narrative Digest, Phoenix Magazine, The Arizona Republic, Arizona Highways, High Country News, and Preservation Magazine. She tweets @tgsterling and blogs about immigration in Arizona at terrygreenesterling.com.

Terry Greene Sterling's Website: http://www.terrygreenesterling.com/

In the wake of last week’s election, Arizona’s Republicans and Democrats are left with a mixed bag of emotions. On the one hand, Democrats are thrilled with the reelection of President Barack Obama but dismayed with the loss of Senate candidate Rich Carmona and Sheriff’s candidate Paul Penzone. They are overjoyed they picked up seats in both chambers of the legislature but puzzled as to why they lost every seat on the Corporation Commission.

Republicans feel the reverse, with some so upset by President Obama’s reelection that they have signed a petition to secede from the union. And though the idea of secession is ridiculous at best, it highlights the feeling that we are living in a fractured country that is in serious need of repair.

We know where our differences lie. The billions of dollars spent on campaign attack ads made that clear. But what about our commonalities? What shared values do we have as Americans and as Arizonans?

Not that long ago, a think tank called the Center for the Future of Arizona put together a report called The Arizona We Want. The report identified eight goals important to Arizona’s citizens: quality jobs for all, 21^st century careers, creating the “place to be” for talented young people, affordable healthcare, protection of Arizona’s natural environment, modern and effective transportation and infrastructure, empowered citizens, and a sense of connection to one another.

As with most public policy matters, the devil is in the details. But what if our state legislature made a concerted effort to focus their time on theses eight goals, above all else, particularly when considering our state budget? I expect we’d see a much different debate at the capitol.

And what if we, as citizens, insisted that our leaders embrace these goals above all else? We have a huge disconnect in this state between government action and citizen wishes. This was confirmed by the Center’s poll, which said 90% of Arizonans believe their elected officials do not represent their interests. That’s even worse than the rating we give Congress.

The good news in the report was that Arizonans rank high in their attachment to their community, but the bad news was that they rank low in their attachment to one another. And this, I believe, is the source of the divide between our state’s citizens and their elected officials.

The Center attributed our inability to connect with one another with our low rankings in areas of volunteerism, charitable giving and service in community organizations. That makes sense. We cannot unite with others when we fail to reach out and make an effort.

But the study also shows us that we have within our grasp a way to step up as citizens and join with our neighbors — be they Republican or Democrat or Independent – and put our imprint on government. This may be as easy as volunteering in our children’s classroom, making contributions to worthy charities or serving on a church committee. Influencing government happens when we meet with our elected officials, read our local paper, and register and vote in elections.

These are not unattainable goals, and if we learn to frame our debates around these goals, we can find ways to begin repairing our fractured state.

It’s easier to find common ground with individuals when we make an effort to know them. It’s easier to move forward when we use our shared values to bridge our divides instead of using our differences to further our rift.

In the days that follow, let’s hope this is the path our elected officials and our citizens will choose to go down. Let’s work toward perfecting our Union instead of upending it.

• DiCiccio’s Distortions
• Killing solar, all in the name of principle
• Does “pro-life” extend beyond the womb?

The story behind this blog begins in 2007 when, on an ordinary September morning, my world was unexpectedly smashed to pieces. A drugged-up gang banger with multiple arrests and outstanding warrants crossed my husband’s path. As my husband and his partner attempted to arrest him, he pulled a gun and shot my husband twice in the back of the head. The murder of a Phoenix police officer is big news. Bigger still is the fact that this happened at the hands of a previously deported illegal immigrant in a border state rife with contentious immigration battles. As I listened to the politicians and pundits spin my husband’s death to further their interests, my journalism background came into focus and I found myself doing my own research into the causes and possible solutions to our nation’s immigration problems. I also gained an awareness of what it was like to be on the opposite side of the lens. I had been a member of the media, and now my family was the subject of the story. When I went public with my views on immigration, I was drawn even further into the political web of Arizona politics, and though I shied away for a time, I felt I could no longer be silent. And so I created this blog, my editorial on the challenges facing our state and our nation. My expectation is that it will be used as a source of reasoned debate to elevate our discussions in a thoughtful and informed manner while seeking solutions to complex problems. I hope the differing opinions expressed by myself and others will both challenge and motivate individuals to work for the greater good.

Julie Erfle's Website: http://politicsuncuffed.com/

Boy, I hate to be the one to tell you, Holly Solomon, but you are accused of running down your husband and permanently disfiguring him–all because of the misinformed and misguided thought that President Obama’s reelection would hurt your family.

Holly, it is President Obama that will most HELP your family. Mitt Romney as President would have given great tax breaks to the rich and left the middle class in the lurch. You know, the “47 percent” he thinks are takers who aren’t worth worrying about? Bet you fit in that category, Holly. And yet you thought this man would help your struggling family?

What, do you only listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? Is that where you got your positions backwards on which candidate was looking out for the middle class?

Have you heard President Obama lately, clearly telling Republicans he won’t let them try and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, but demanding the rich in this nation pay a little more? They can afford it. It won’t mean the difference between bread on the table or not. The middle class can’t afford the tax hikes the Republicans favor–you didn’t know that when you ran down your husband?

I’d feel sorry for you if there wasn’t plenty of other media besides the right-wing bubble of Fox-Limbaugh to set you straight. I do feel sorry for your husband, who will suffer the rest of his life.

• Coldhearted Gov. Brewer
• Horne on morals???
• Our stupid, deaf Senate

Jana Bommersbach is one of Arizona's most acclaimed journalists. The Arizona Press Club has recognized her lifetime of achievement with its highest honor--The Distinguished Service Award. And the Society of Professional Journalists have inducted her into the Order of the Silver Key as an "inspiration to the state's media community." She has been Arizona Journalist of the Year and twice was recognized as the nation's top city magazine columnist. Jana is a communications expert who has won accolades in every phase of her career: journalist, author, broadcaster and speaker.

Jana Bommersbach's Website: http://www.janabommersbach.com/

A new report by the venerable Pew Hispanic Center indicates the Hispanic electorate will likely double by 2030.

Right now, Latinos compose 10 percent of our electorate. In less than two decades, that number will surge to 20 percent.

For years, the Hispanic electorate has been trashed for not voting in greater numbers, but  let’s get real.

In the first place, several million Hispanics can’t vote because they’re undocumented.

In the second place,  this is a very young demographic.

A whole bunch of Hispanics aren’t eligible to vote yet. But by 2030, as Pew points out, a  good many of our young Hispanic Americans will have achieved voting age.

Do you think these voters will forget what was said about, and what happened to, their families?

• An Arizona Journalist’s Gratitude
• In Cold Blood: The NRA, Arizona and Guns
• Los Cenzontles: Talent, Heart and Amazing Music

Journalist Terry Greene Sterling has lived in Arizona most of her life, and has reported on the political brawls and human tragedies that have long made Arizona the focus of national news. She was raised on an Arizona cattle ranch, and learned to speak Spanish at the same time she learned English. The author of Illegal, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone, Sterling has been honored with more than 50 national and regional journalism awards. She was named Virg Hill Journalist of the Year, Arizona’s highest journalism honor, three times. She was a staff writer for Phoenix New Times for 14 years before branching out on her own. She is a contributor for The Daily Beast, and Writer-in-Residence at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Her work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Newsweek.com, Salon.com, Rollingstone.com, The Nieman Narrative Digest, Phoenix Magazine, The Arizona Republic, Arizona Highways, High Country News, and Preservation Magazine. She tweets @tgsterling and blogs about immigration in Arizona at terrygreenesterling.com.

Terry Greene Sterling's Website: http://www.terrygreenesterling.com/

An ABC/Washington Post poll once again drives home how most Americans feel about their undocumented, law-abiding neighbors. Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the poll supported a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented.

ABC News writes:

“In this survey, support for a path to citizenship peaks at 82 percent among Hispanics, 71 percent among Democrats and liberals alike and 69 percent among young adults, all key Obama groups. Support’s at 68 percent among nonwhites overall, compared with 51 percent among non-Hispanic whites. Obama lost white voters by 20 points last week, but won nonwhites — who accounted for a record 28 percent of the electorate – by 61 points. It was a record racial gap.”

This takes me back to 2010. Remember the political opportunism, the  hysteria and the absolute lies that spurred the passage of SB 1070? Remember all the fearmongering about how we were being overrun by lazy conniving criminal “illegals” at the very time illegal immigration was approaching record lows?

Back then, The Arizona Republic ran a poll and found out that many Arizonans actually supported allowing their undocumented neighbors to stay if the immigrants worked and paid taxes, which, of course, most do.

This odd finding in the Arizona Republic poll confirmed to me that most Arizonans who supported SB 1070 never understood the true intent of the law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer — SB1070 was intended to remove.every.undocumented.immigrant.from.arizona.

The law passed because our checks and balances were all akimbo — Gov. Janet Napolitano was called to Washington to head Homeland Security. Gov. Jan Brewer constitutionally rose from Secretary of State to replace Napolitano.  Brewer, a shrewd  political opportunist, signed SB 1070 to get herself elected in a tough race against Terry Goddard. Then came the slew of copycat laws across the nation and the Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric that  helped lead to Mitt Romney’s electoral slap down. The undocumented should “self-dpeort,” Romney said during the campaign. And he also said he’d veto the Dream Act.

And on and on.

I”m still astounded by how out-of-touch Romney’s advisors were.

Today’s ABC News -Washington Post poll only confirms it.

• An Arizona Journalist’s Gratitude
• In Cold Blood: The NRA, Arizona and Guns
• Los Cenzontles: Talent, Heart and Amazing Music

Journalist Terry Greene Sterling has lived in Arizona most of her life, and has reported on the political brawls and human tragedies that have long made Arizona the focus of national news. She was raised on an Arizona cattle ranch, and learned to speak Spanish at the same time she learned English. The author of Illegal, Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone, Sterling has been honored with more than 50 national and regional journalism awards. She was named Virg Hill Journalist of the Year, Arizona’s highest journalism honor, three times. She was a staff writer for Phoenix New Times for 14 years before branching out on her own. She is a contributor for The Daily Beast, and Writer-in-Residence at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Her work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Newsweek.com, Salon.com, Rollingstone.com, The Nieman Narrative Digest, Phoenix Magazine, The Arizona Republic, Arizona Highways, High Country News, and Preservation Magazine. She tweets @tgsterling and blogs about immigration in Arizona at terrygreenesterling.com.

Terry Greene Sterling's Website: http://www.terrygreenesterling.com/

So petitions from 47 states are on the White House website, all asking for their states to secede from the U.S.

Including, of course, Arizona (you might remember one of the legislative loonies last session introducing a bill suggesting that happen).

Our petition (you can read the whole shebang here) begins thusly:

Peacefully grant the State of Arizona to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

As the founding fathers of the united States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”

The citizens of the great state of Arizona have the right to stand for their principles. That man is granted unalienable rights, which are not the dispensations of the government, but find their beginnings in God and come from God alone. These are the principles that our forefathers stood for, the principles upon, which our Constitution is based, and those in which we firmly place our belief and resolve.

Of course.

This is followed by thousands of signatures, almost half from outside Arizona.

Wait a minute . . . do you smell conspiracy here?  

Why are those outside our state signing a petition to allow Arizona to secede from the country?

Simple. They want us out of the country.

And who can blame them?  We’re the state that brought the country the Unholy Trio of Arpaio, Brewer and Pearce.

No wonder they want us to leave.

• Did Jeff Flake lie or just deceive?
• Make it rain: The Scandals keep on coming . . . sort of
• Jodi Arias Trial: Everyone’s 15 minutes of fame

Mike McClellan has lived in Arizona since 1967 where he attended high school and the University of Arizona. McClellan taught high school English for 36 years, including 30 years at at Dobson High School in Mesa. He has been a contributing columnist to both the East Valley Republic editions and the East Valley Tribune.

Mike McClellan's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/mikemcclellansblog/

Kyrsten Sinema is my new Congresswoman, having defeated her Republican opponent Vernon Parker by over 6000 votes in CD9, as of the latest count. Her decisive victory didn’t even require Parker saying something stupid about rape pregnancies! As y’all know, back during the primary I was a Nervous Nellie about Sinema and supported another candidate. I haven’t been happier to be wrong about something in a long time (and I really need to do something about my nerves). Here are the reasons I feel Sinema prevailed so handily last week:

1. Kyrsten Sinema is a well-known and well-liked politician in Arizona, especially among Democrats. She built up a solid record of public service in the state legislature on education, health care, reproductive issues, and environmental protection, in addition to being a strong public voice against the harsh Republican agenda. She was not without her critics, from the Left and Right, but obviously well more than half the voters in CD9 trusted her abilities and record more than the complaints of her detractors.

2. Sinema is an indefatigable campaigner with a mighty fundraising Rolodex, which a Daily Kos diarist described as “Liberal Activists Meet Arizona Insiders”. It’s worth noting that the majority of Sinema’s contributions came from within Arizona. Her campaign attracted hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers who made tens of thousands of voter contacts. She and her campaign worked their asses off and they deserve this victory.

3. When you run ads portraying the Democratic candidate in a Dem-leaning district as a radical socialist communist housewife-hater approximately 987,000 times a day, it may have the opposite effect of what you intend. Republicans poured money into the Phoenix market to defeat Sinema with negative but it looks like it didn’t work. Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic voters who are a slim majority in this district, are getting tired of the politicians they respect (up to and including President Obama, who got 52% of the vote in the region in 2008) constantly being denigrated as anti-American scum. It’s even possible that a good number of this group of voters, who comprise both registered Democrats and left-leaning independents, take the endless and vitriolic conflation of “Democrats” and “liberals” with all things evil and unsavory a tad personally. While laughing about the silliness of it along with Comedy Central and Bill Maher, of course. I sure got an extra kick out of marking Kyrsten Sinema’s name on my ballot when I thought of that.

I’m off to the Big Easy tomorrow and will be there until Sunday. I’ll be too busy partying uh I mean “paying careful attention to property tax lien seminars” to blog.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

When a political party loses an election, either it learns and adapts or it bristles and digs into a trench of electoral failure.

After the Democrats lost their third straight landslide in 1988, they got smart and elected an Arkansas Democrat who broke through the GOP’s southern grip.

In 2000, the Bush campaign realized the Republican Party looked white and cranky. It seems like ancient history before 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan but Bush ran as a compassionate conservative.

Remember when he said that our failing schools, especially in the inner-city, suffered from “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

He was right politically and morally. It’s time for the GOP to be right politically and morally again. This time the issue is immigration reform.

My second greatest regret about the Bush presidency (after the decision to invade Iraq) is that he didn’t start his second term with immigration reform. Presidents need the wisdom to understand what issues are their issues and which issues should be left to successors. We weren’t ready for social security reform but we were ready for immigration reform.

By the time Bush got to immigration reform, it was too late. In 2007, the GOP had been crushed in the previous election. The GOP lost the House and Senate. The levers of power no longer worked as smoothly as 2005.

Even with Ted Kennedy’s support, the GOP needed Harry Reid to pass the legislation. Reid wasn’t about to give the GOP that triumph. So it died an ignominious death. Immigration reform’s champions like Kyl, McCain, Flake and Shadegg were bloodied and bruised.

The political message was that immigration reform was the new third rail of politics for Republicans. Touch it at your own peril.

Since then the handful of brave Republicans who publicly supported comprehensive immigration reform were loudly accused of amnesty and treason. The business leaders who advocated for a humane policy were boycotted and accused of putting “profit before patriotism.”

The entire conversation devolved into a hyperbolic convulsion of who can be tougher on the issue.

In Arizona, Russell Pearce built what seemed like an impenetrable wall around the Republican Party that demanded strict adherence to his immigration orthodoxy. In truth, this orthodoxy was re-packaged John Birch Society rhetoric from the 60’s with the bright shiny bow of border security tied around it.

“Close our borders.”

“We are being infiltrated.”

“National Sovereignty.”

Straw men arguments were fabricated to enforce ideological purity. The problem with straw men is simple. Sometimes they work short-term but soon enough voters figure it out and the proponents of weak arguments come crashing down in defeat.

Russell Pearce has now lost two straight elections. Joe Arpaio only got 52% of the vote in a county that Romney won decisively.

Demographics are rapidly moving against the GOP on this issue. Romney only received 21% of the Latino vote.

That is catastrophic. If it continues, the GOP will join the trash bin of history along with the Whig party.

Some Arizona Republicans have looked like George Wallace standing in front of the school door when it comes to this generation’s civil rights struggle.The good news is the GOP can change.

It must change.

It must get on the right side of history.

I know many first and second generation Latinos. Not one of them came to this country to create a “new” Mexico within our borders. Not one of them came here to break our laws or hurt our country.

They came here because they want to be part of the greatest experiment in human history – a representative democracy. They believe America is a “shining city on a hill.” They left tyranny and poverty. In many cases they risked their lives crossing a scorching desert to make a better life for themselves and their children.

We are a land of immigrants. The opportunity of America isn’t confined to those here now. We must create comprehensive reform that affords the American dream to far more than currently have the chance. By so doing, we will embrace the patch they will place on the American quilt.

Dramatically reforming our immigration laws is this generation’s civil rights struggle.

Dramatically changing conservative rhetoric about the issue is this Republican generation’s moral and political calling.

• Deserved applause
• …And Early Voting
• Ten Things Said By A Losing Obama Campaign

Nathan is the founder and managing partner of Lincoln Strategy Group. Nathan manages the day to day operations at LSG, and serves as the chief public representative for the firm. Nathan’s wide ranging expertise in both campaign management and government relations, helps him manage clients to success. Previously Nathan served as Executive Director for the Republican Party and as a senior government relations representative.

Nathan Sproul's Website: http://www.lincoln-strategy.com

Its been a week since the election and if you are like me, you’ve probably enjoyed the quiet.  Being quiet is good for the soul and allows our thoughts to catch up with our tongue.  Here’s what I’ve been thinking….

That was one heck of a fight.  The nation is closely divided and I suppose that is something to be lamented.  But as bad as campaign season can get, aren’t we glad that the fight is contained to words instead of bullets?  And doesn’t it signal that some new threshold has been crossed when the man who is President and the man who almost was president both come from minority groups?  

And isn’t it wonderful that a man who spent six years pursuing the presidency, putting it all on the line, comes tantalizingly close, but just short, can walk to the podium and ask the country to pray for the success of the man who vanquished him?  And what does it say about a country when the victor can walk to a different podium and, instead of repercussions, acknowledge the deeply held beliefs and good character of the vanquished?  

What I think it all says is that despite our challenges and our differences, this system of government is still the best in the world.  And even though I disagree with President Obama, I will join with Mitt Romney and pray for his success.  Have you seen the size of the national debt?  He’s going to need all the heavenly help he can get!

• Campaigning always better than complaining
• Get out the vote, the Romney way
• The new flim-flam artists

Kirk Adams is the former Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.

Kirk Adams's Website:

I’m not surprised that Prop. 204 and the Scottsdale school district’s request for yet another override failed to pass.  Temporary taxes have a habit of becoming permanent once the receivers of the money get spoiled by it.

Scottsdale’s school enrollment has been declining for at least 5 years but every couple of years they ask for another override and usually get it.  I’m wondering if instead there is some waste happening that could be avoided to save a buck.

This year Scottsdale learned the hard way that its citizens are saying “Enough is enough” as they voted down the privilege of increasing their property taxes by about $25.  Cave Creek acted in a similar manner earlier this year with a “no” vote on their override.  The voters are getting their point across.

I’m not against education.  My wife and I are both college graduates but it looks like the school district needs to look harder at their situation and consider some belt tightening. 

• MEMORIAL DAY SPECIAL: THE RED CROSS WOMEN OF WWII
• In Defense of neighborhood HOAs
• The Insanity of Political Correctness

Jim McAllister has been a Plugged-In Scottsdale blogger, an Arizona Republic Sunday Plugged-In contributor, and a Scottsdale Republic columnist since 2005. He has also written for the Sonoran News and did a weekly column from 2004-2006 for the Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Independent. In 2004 he wrote a 7 part series on The History of Television for TV TOME (now TV.Com). A veteran of the U. S. Air Force, he has done hosting and commercial work in radio and TV and currently does a blog at jmcallister.blogspot.com.

Jim McAllister's Website: http://mcallister.blogspot.com

If you voted for Obama, as  I did, you’ve enjoyed the last few days of Republican teeth-gnashing, especially from those who actually believe Karl Rove, whose PAC-supported candidates didn’t win a single race.

And it’s been fun watching the abrupt “evolution” on immigration from so many Republicans (more on that tomorrow).

But before Democrats get too smug, they ought to look at the numbers.

Sure, the President get an overwhelming number of minority, youth,  and women votes.

But can the Democrats hold onto those groups in 2016, or is the minority/youth coalition an Obama phenomenon, a Coalition of the Excited, still enthralled with voting for the first Black President?

I wonder if it’s the latter.  Not to say that minorities and the young still won’t vote for a Democrat in 2016, but I wonder if the numbers will drop, giving the Republicans a chance.

To keep the level of youth and minority turnout in 2016 without the enthusiasm Obama has generated will be difficult

Of course, all bets are off if the Dems nominate the first woman to have a chance at the presidency.

• Did Jeff Flake lie or just deceive?
• Make it rain: The Scandals keep on coming . . . sort of
• Jodi Arias Trial: Everyone’s 15 minutes of fame

Mike McClellan has lived in Arizona since 1967 where he attended high school and the University of Arizona. McClellan taught high school English for 36 years, including 30 years at at Dobson High School in Mesa. He has been a contributing columnist to both the East Valley Republic editions and the East Valley Tribune.

Mike McClellan's Website: http://azcvoices.com/politics/author/mikemcclellansblog/

Provocative query from one of my Tweeps the other night:

Question for AZDems in coming weeks: if dream candidate @CarmonaForAZ can’t get over 47% in decent year, can any Dem win statewide?

I responded, glumly, that maybe they wouldn’t as long as Dems accept having lower registration numbers than independents in this state. But I’ve been mulling it over all day and I’m not sure we can extrapolate future elections from one Senate race, especially one in which the GOP candidate (Jeff Flake) was always going to be really tough to beat, no matter who the Dems ran. I keep circling back to my first reaction and, you know, it’s entirely possible that simplest explanation for the problem is the correct one. Matter of fact, it’s entirely probable.

Democrats don’t win statewide because there aren’t enough Democratic voters in Arizona. For you visual learners, here’s our situation:

Chart: Arizona Capitol Times July 12, 2012

Robert Robb of the AZ Republic has been thinking of the same thing. In today’s column he asks why, when demographics are supposedly in their favor, Democrats are a “rapidly shrinking force in Arizona politics”.

Republicans have generally held steady in their voter-registration figures in the face of the true rising force in Arizona politics, the independent voter. Democrats have been hemorrhaging registrants.

For this presidential election, there were 69,000 fewer registered Democrats than there were in 2008. In 1998, Democrats had a registration advantage over Republicans in 12 of Arizona’s 15 counties. Today, they have an advantage in just seven.

What leaves me dumbfounded is that Democratic leaders in Arizona seem completely unconcerned about this. They don’t even acknowledge that the party has a problem that needs to be addressed.

If not having a single statewide elected Democrat for the first time in 100 years doesn’t shake them out of their lethargy, probably nothing will.

Robb’s wrong about the lethargy. Arizona Democrats are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet. But Robb’s charge that the party hasn’t made a priority of reversing course on diminishing Dem registration numbers does ring true. One notable example was Andrei Cherny, who didn’t seem too worried about it at all when he was state chair. He seemed to see it as an opportunity for the Dems to “expand the tent”. I recall some rank and file activists being shocked and angered by his attitude but it really wasn’t surprising considering that Cherny, a centrist, announced he wanted to move the party to the right as soon he was elected by the State Committee in January, 2011. More independents than Democratic voters might have suited him just fine in that endeavor. By the time Bill Roe (who strikes me as a more traditional Dem who would be concerned about a drop in registration numbers) took over after Cherny’s brief tenure it was the start of election season and candidate support took precedence over everything else.

Democrats have been doing voter registration efforts for years on volunteer strength at the district level, and at times have hired canvassers to boost the rolls, but it clearly hasn’t been enough. Improving Dem registration numbers needs to be job #1 in this off year and this issue should be of primary importance to State Committee members in selecting a new chair next year. The party has solid field operations during elections but, during election season, too much time and too many resources are devoted to identifying “persuadable” independents and Rs and begging them to vote Dem in down-ticket races. Getting closer to where Republicans are (35%) in voter registration would put Dems in a much better position to win back some statewide seats.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/

It’s time for America to move on immigration. It’s time for Arizona to move on immigration. The issue has always been a question of balancing our fundamental humanity and the commonalities of our universal moral code with the practical needs and demands of our irrefutably evolving economy. If approached in that frame of mind, a solution can be found. But it must be a solution that’s very different from what NAFTA failed to achieve (because labor issues were pushed off the table) and what Reagan’s amnesty plan ignored by assuming that the legalization of 3.5 million undocumented immigrants at the time would somehow derail the economic destiny of North America – or for that matter the world. The ability to effect historic change has always required brands of courage suited to the task at hand. I only hope that Arizona’s leaders, as well as our leaders in Washington, can muster the collective courage we need now to meet this issue head on instead of burying ours head in the sand and assuming that someone else, in another place, at a later time will find a solution that will finally begin to fix the shameful and self-destructive shortcomings of our current immigration system. I ask that we all remind ourselves, as I must do myself, that immigrants are not the problem and immigration is not the problem. The problem is our antiquated, myopic and ideologically corrupted system, one that’s woefully unsuited for the demands of our modern economy and ill equipped for the structural challenges to come. I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. I can only pray, we should only pray, that the tunnel doesn’t collapse and crush the good work already done by so many.

• DREAMers Driving Freedom
• Arpaio’s ‘reign of terror’ destroying Latino families
• Recalling Arpaio’s record, justifies his recall

James E. Garcia is a playwright, journalist, university lecturer, and Phoenix-based media communications consultant. As a journalist, he has been a reporter, columnist, magazine and newspaper editor, foreign correspondent, and television, radio and online commentator. He is the owner of Creative Vistas Media, co-founder of The Real Arizona Coalition (therealarizona.org), immediate past chair of the Arizona Latino Research Enterprise, and the author of more than 20 plays.

James Garcia's Website: http://www.therealarizona.org

Some of the winners in this year’s elections have to be the number crunching nerds whose models and analysis accurately predicted the outcomes of countless races. As a scientist and a proud nerd, who bases just about everything on reliable data and verifiable facts, I am encouraged enough by this outcome to write my first post for Democratic Diva. Yes, numbers will be involved.

This year I worked on a school override campaign where 3 of 4 measures lost – although we had won in the same districts repeatedly in the last 4 years. I had to figure out why. Searching for answers, I began looking in detail at the county wide results, trying to find correlations between the type of funding request and the rate of success or failure.  As of this morning:

-All of the bond requests passed by large margins.  Since there is no longer any state money available for building new schools, bond measures are as close to a guaranteed win as you can get in politics.

-88% of M&O overrides that included tax increases failed; maybe voters just did not approve tax increases in this economy? But, 33% of M&O overrides that did not increase taxes also failed. Hum.

-60% of Capital overrides, which are usually the hardest to pass and include tax increases, were approved. Curiouser and Curiouser.

Perhaps there was a correlation between success and failure based on the voter registration counts? Now, one of the things I truly enjoy about working on school campaigns is that the committees are made up of people of all ages, races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and political parties, who come together to fight for the future of the district’s children. My initial gut feeling told me that party registration should not matter that much. Well, numbers prove gut feelings wrong…again.

In districts with a Democratic voter registration advantage, 15 of 17 measures passed. Of the two that lost, one was in the district with the narrowest Democratic advantage, and was the second question on the ballot (when two measures for the same school were on the ballot, the “yes” count for the second one listed was lower by 2-4% this year).

In districts with a Republican voter registration advantage, 1 of 13 measures passed. The one measure that passed regarded a lease agreement so was not actually a comparable budget override. This means that in school districts with a Republican voter advantage, no budget override passed this year. A 100% failure rate!

So in the end, it is the children in the Republican dominated school districts that are being short-changed the most by the Republican ideology.  Their “the only good tax is no tax” and “schools need to learn to live within their means” bravado, is creating a system where children in Democratic leaning school districts are funded at the maximum levels possible, while children in Republican leaning school districts have fewer teachers, larger class sizes, more antiquated technology, etc.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

It is time for the Legislature to revise the rules so that local school funding is adequate and reliable for all districts. We must stop forcing districts to go back to voters every four years in a continual fight just to maintain local funding that has been approved over and over again for more than 25 years. The Legislature and Governor also need to stop passing the buck to schools, cities, and counties.  They need to stop forcing others to do the heavy lifting of raising the revenue essential for adequate public services, just so a handful of Republican legislators can keep their no-tax pledge to Grover Norquist – but that’s a subject for another day.

• AZ Rep Johnny Mendez came out as atheist and that is good for all of us
• Occupy Movement was targeted by Uncle Sam on behalf of Big Business
• Feeling grateful for all those Democrats in the AZ Senate today

I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, and an adventurous streak led me to join the Navy. I moved to Arizona in 1997 after serving 10 years in the Navy to work in semi-conductor manufacturing. I got involved in national and Arizona politics in 2003. I ran for 2006 State Senate in Ahwatukee and was a Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I now live in North Central Phoenix with my boyfriend, Mark, and our three dogs. I've been blogging for Democratic Diva since 2007 about local and national politics with a strong emphasis on women's issues.

Donna Gratehouse's Website: http://www.democraticdiva.com/