From your campaign pitch, to . . .

January 21, 2012

by David Safier I'm hoping Scott Walker is right about [part of] what he says in a mailing I received asking begging for money. Dear Fellow Conservative: Conservatives are under attack in Wisconsin and that means . . . There's BIG TROUBLE AHEAD where you live. If the powerful labor unions get their way in

‘Don’t make me angry’ Frank Antenori does ‘red meat’ self-parody

January 21, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Southern Arizona Tea-Publican tools for our colonial overlords from the state of Maricopa have been hating on the City of Tucson and Pima County for years, trying to subjugate its "librul guvmint."

They have imposed a Rio Nuevo Board appointed by our colonial overlords, sought to impose new election rules on the Charter City of Tucson, sought to impose new rules for contract bids for government services and wipe out the civil service merit selection system for county employees. They stole millions of dollars from state revenue sharing to "balance" the state budget leaving us without enough money to even fill potholes. They outright stole a wastewater treatment facility from Pima County and handed it over to the Town of Marana.

The latest attempt by Southern Arizona's Tea-Publican tools for our colonial overlords from the state of Maricopa to subjugate our "librul guvmint" is this, Panel would let 3 towns veto county bonds:

Republican lawmakers from Southern Arizona are proposing a new authority that would give Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita, together, veto power over new borrowing for roads and other projects in Pima County.

* * *

HB 2656 would bar the county from even seeking voter approval for new bonds without first getting the OK from the majority of a new six-member board consisting of one county representative and one representative of each incorporated city within the county.

That means it would take four votes for any project to proceed, allowing any three representatives to block new bonds.

The new board would also have to approve any changes in bond spending.

Here is the best part:

All of the sponsors of the legislation, like Rep. Terri Proud, are Republicans. Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, one of the sponsors, acknowledged there is a partisan element.

"You have Republican bedroom communities that are being punished, literally punished, by the county and the Democrat stronghold of Tucson who are upset that these Republican bedroom communities are sucking people and businesses out of Tucson and into their communities," he said.

In other words a Tea-Publican minority should be allowed to impose its will on the Demoratic majority of Pima County. This is authoritarianism and tyranny.

SCOTUS rejects Federal Court redistricting maps in Texas

January 20, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously overturned orders issued by a federal court in Texas that drew its own new maps for legislative districts, and ordered it to reconsider. Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSblog UPDATE: Court rejects Texas maps, delays W.Va. map:

In an 11-page unsigned opinion, the Court said that the three-judge District Court in San Antonio may not have used the “appropriate standards,” which the Court spelled out in some detail. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion, repeated his view that a key federal voting rights act implicated in the Texas case is unconstitutional.  The decision is here.

Because of Justice Thomas’s view about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he would have ordered the San Antonio court to let Texas use its own maps without change for the 2012 elections.  However, the other Justices did not accept that approach, instead ordering the court in Texas to start with the state’s plan but also to make some rulings about whether any parts of it are likely to be nullified in court.

* * *

When the case is taken up again by the San Antonio court, it is now under orders to use a series of maps drawn by the state legislature last year “as a starting point” for crafting any new districts.  Although Texas’s own maps have not yet been legally cleared in Washington, as Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires, the Court said that does not mean that the legislature’s maps, or the policies that lay behind the creation of those maps, “can be disregarded by a district court drawing an interim plan.”

The San Antonio court is judging challenges to the Texas maps only under a different part of the Voting Rights Act — Section 2 — and under the Constitution.  A federal District Court in Washington this week began a trial of the Section 5 issue.  The Supreme Court told the San Antonio court not to prejudge what the Washington court may do under Section 5, but the Texas court is under a duty to decide whether it is “reasonably probable” that parts of the plan will not get cleared under Section 5.

* * *

Turning to its own past precedents, the Court — citing its 1996 decision in Lopez v. Monterey County — said that a District Court may not adopt “as its own” a state plan that needs Washington clearance but does not yet have it.  However, the precedents “say nothing about whether a district court may take guidance from the lawful policies incorporated in such a plan for aid in drawing an interim map.”  Turning then to its 1982 decision in Upham v. Seamon, the Court said that a district court has a duty to “defer to the unobjectionable aspects of a state’s plan” even in a situation where clearance was sought but had been denied.

The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.

Fact checking the mendacity of ‘Mittens’

January 20, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week I posted Fact checking the mendacity of 'Mittens', a new regular Friday afternoon feature by Steve Benen at the Political Animal – Chronicling Mitt’s mendacity. His third weekly post:

1. “The president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military spending.”

That’s a Romney favorite, but it’s not at all accurate.

2. “This president has opened up no new markets for American goods around the world in his three years, even as European nations and China have opened up 44.”

That’s not even close to being true.

3. “We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I’ve got one out there already and I’m not even president, yet.”

This one actually includes multiple lies.

4. “Our navy is smaller than it’s been since 1917.”

That’s wildly misleading and intended to deceive.

5. “[D]on’t forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion. And that was President Obama, to pay for Obamacare.”

As Romney almost certainly knows, that’s just not true.

6. “I went off on my own. I didn’t inherit money from my parents.”

Yes, actually, he did.

7. “While we’ve got $15 trillion of debt, [the president] said, ‘Look, I’m going to put another $1 trillion of debt for Obamacare.’”

That’s demonstrably ridiculous. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t add to the debt, it cuts the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars.

8. “I stood as a pro-life governor and that’s why the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association supported my record as governor, endorsed my record as governor.”

Actually, Romney was a pro-choice governor until late in his term (right around the time he decided he’s run for president as a culture warrior), and when he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association, Romney forcefully rejected their support.

9. “I’m concerned about the poor in this country. We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves. I’m not terribly worried about the very wealthiest in our society; they’re doing just fine.”

In reality, Romney wants to slash spending on programs that benefit the poor, shred the safety net, and give the very wealthiest in our society another generous tax cut.

10. Romney described himself as “someone who’s lived in the real streets of America.”

It’s unclear what constitutes a “real” street in Romney’s mind, but given his wealth and background, this is, at a minimum, entirely misleading.

So far, the political world has been reluctant to call Romney out on his dishonesty, and some in the media even seem taken aback when others, including Republicans, accuse the former governor of being deceitful.

I’m afraid we may be moving deeper into an era of “post-truth politics.”

County Supe Race: Nancy Young Wright announces. Vic Williams polishes his moderate/conservative Republican cred

January 20, 2012

by David Safier

Former LD-26 State Legislator, Democrat Nancy Young Wright, has formally announced her candidacy for the open Pima Country District 1 Supervisor seat. You can read her Media Release after the jump. So far as I know, none of the four potential Republican candidates have formally announced.

[Full disclosure: I do volunteer work with Nancy Young Wright's campaign.]

The most active R non-candidate is current LD-26 legislator Vic Williams, getting his name on every op ed he can, being quoted in as many news stories as possible. Once again, Vic has licked his index finger, stuck it in the air and figured out what's blowin' in the wind. The man needs no polls. He has nearly perfect political pitch. It borders on the uncanny.

What Vic has figured is, Mike Hellon, part of the old guard Republican establishment, may have more appeal to moderates. Meanwhile, Ally Miller and Stuart McDaniel are running to his right. So Vic has to take a non-position somewhere right in the middle and try to pick votes one by one from his opponents.

Vic's latest gambit: picking a fight with his LD-26 colleague, Sen. Al Melvin, in The Explorer. "Melvin called me a RINO!" Vic bellows. "Am not!" Al's reason for the trash talk, according to Vic, is Vic's support of Gov. Brewer. In fact, Vic tells us, he has a "proven fiscally conservative, pro-business voting record."

Get it? Vic is a uniter, not a divider, a conservative who supports the guv, unlike Al. He's moderate. He's conservative. He's whatever you want him to be. Then — and this is Vic at his manly best — he chests up to Al, writing,

"Senator Melvin, I challenge you to a series of public debates or a series of editorials regarding our policy differences to be hosted by an impartial party."

Inside, Vic is thinking, "Please, Al, Please, let's fight in public. More free publicity!"

You can read Wright's declaration of candidacy after the jump.

Campaigns to overturn Citizens United v. FEC

January 20, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Move to Amend is sponsoring "Occupy the Courts Day" today on the second anniversary of Citizens United, to foster petitioning to amend the U.S. Constitution to state that “corporations are not people and money is not speech.” Robert Reich, Chairman of Common Cause, appears in this video from a new organization, Amend 2012,

Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus Meet and Greet

January 20, 2012

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: For Democrats arriving in Tucson on Friday evening for the Arizona Democratic Party State Committee Meeting on Saturday, here is an event you may want to attend: Progressive Caucus Meet and Greet Friday Jan. 20th 6:30 p.m. Holiday Inn Palo Verde, Tucson Airport Phil Lopes of Tucson PDA has reserved a space