Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Willard "Mittens" Romney has used his substantial financial resources to try to score a knock-out punch in the Florida primary on Tuesday. He has outspent Newt Gingrich by some estimates 5-1 in Florida. If polling coming out of Florida can be believed, Mittens should score an easy win in Florida on Tuesday.

The corporate media villagers and Beltway bloviators will all sing from the GOP establishment hymnal Tuesday night that this is a "knock-out punch" for Mittens. But is it really?

Florida is a diverse state with several expensive media markets. Advantage Romney. But upcoming GOP primary/caucus states are less diverse than Florida (more solidly conservative), and have far less expensive media markets. The Not-the-Romney candidate(s) may be able to afford a competitive "air war" with Romney.

Moreover, despite a win in Florida by Romney he still trails Gingrich in national polling. Real Clear Politics polling average. (click for larger image).

Rick "man on dog" Santorum is out of money and out of momentum. His daughter's recent illness may give him a convenient excuse to vote himself off the island after Tuesday. That would clear the field and make it a two man race. Santorum supporters are far more likely to jump to Gingrich than to Romney.

In the NBC/WSJ poll last week Romney’s unfavorability rating among independents spiked 20 points in the last two months. The poll found that among all Americans, Romney is rated very or somewhat positively by only 31 percent, while he’s rated very or somewhat negatively by 36 percent. He's upside down in negative numbers and spiking. The more the public sees Mittens the more they dislike him — and its only January.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As Dana Carvey's SNL character the Church Lady would say: "Isn't that special!" Arizona Democratic Party Chair Andrei Cherny, for whom the party had to bend its bylaws last year in order to make him chair of the party, announced that he is stepping down today after only one year into a two year commitment to do what, exactly? He doesn't disclose in his letter to Democrats.

Some quick points. First, this is an announcement Cherny should have made in person to state committee members in Tucson on January 21. Second, when the party bent its bylaws last year to make him chair we were told he was some kind of wunderkind of fundraising. He has not been. I am sure that I was not the only one shocked by ADP Treasurer Rick McGuire's treasurer's report at the state committee meeting in Tucson. The fact that Democrats are doing slightly better than the Arizona GOP is little consolation in the age of Citizens United. Finally, I have had enough of people who use the chair's position only as a stepping stone to seek political office.

This leaves the Arizona Democratic Party with an interim chair, Vice Chairwoman Harriet Young, until the Arizona Democratic Party elects a new chair to complete Cherny's term at its Spring State Committee Meeting in Phoenix on April 21 — already expected to be a very long and possibly contentious meeting with the selection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Cherny's sense of timing could not be worse.

And just who is going to step into the chair's position well into a presidential election year who has the capacity to raise a ton of money for campaigns on such short notice? No name immediately comes to mind.

Keep all of this in mind when you read Cherny's self-congratulatory resignation letter below the fold (things ain't as as rosy as he portrays them):

by David Safier This ad for the NRA store would be laughable if it weren't for the use of JFK, assassinated by rifle shots, as a supporter of the perversion of "Freedom" the NRA stands for. Advertisement The "I didn't say that," Much-louder-than-a-dog-whistle pairing of the killing a [Democratic] president with the "cost of freedom" … Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While I am on the subject of the Goldwater Institute's ready and willing stooge, Rep. Justin Olson (R-Mesa), this piece of work is up to something even more nefarious.

Olson is proposing that the House adopt a procedural rule that would effectively impose the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) by legislative fiat, rather than by law.

You may recall that the "Son of TABOR" bill last year HB 2707 was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer as being too restrictive. Hence, the back-door attempt by legislative fiat. House GOP looks to rule change for spending limit -Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

The rule requires approval by a majority of the 60-member body – 40 of whom are Republicans – to be adopted.

Under the proposed rule, any future budget that exceeds the baseline would be deemed out of order, and lawmakers would be required to vote on whether they wanted to suspend the rule in order to approve the budget.

The change would be more flexible than a statutory or constitutional one, something Olson said remedies Brewer’s complain that last year’s bill tied future Legislatures’ hands. The purpose, he said, is to force a discussion about spending every time the Legislature considers a budget.

“It would require that debate and vote, and members would have to make the case as to why they were growing the budget,” he said.

House Speaker Andy Tobin called the rule “a good first step” in imposing a spending limit.

But when the rule came up during the House Republican caucus meeting on Tuesday, some of his colleagues had concerns.

Although Olson suggested that the flexibility was an advantage, Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction, called the rule “a toothless tiger” and said that it would be “embarrassing” if a lawmaker tried to tell his constituents that he had put this measure in place to control excessive spending, only to see the rule bypassed by a procedural vote.

“This is something I would expect out of Congress, not the state of Arizona. Why don’t we just do our job? I think this is beneath us,” he said.

Rep. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, said that she was uncomfortable about the precedent of setting policy rather than procedure in the rules.

“We set the stage for some unanticipated consequences that I’m very uncomfortable with,” she said Tuesday.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

No single organization has caused more harm to the state of Arizona or contributed more to its image as an ideological backwater than the Goldwater Institute. The Goldwater Institute operates as a non-profit 501(c)(3), which means it does not have to disclose the donors who fund it, and it does not have to register as a lobbyist organization — even though the Goldwater Institute has its so-called "experts" testifying on bills at the state legislature on a routine basis. They also draft model legislation as a member of ALEC.

The Goldwater Institute is the lobbyist organization trying to kill Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections and is all-in for expansion of Citizens United v. FEC to allow unlimited direct corporate contributions to candidates on the specious legal theories that "money = speech" and "corporations are people."

You may recall that Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had quite enough of the Goldwater Institute operating as lobbyists without registering its members as lobbyists last year. Goldwater Institute ‘lobbies’ against registering more lobbyists - Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

In March, Amy Bjelland, elections director for the Secretary of State’s Office, sent the Goldwater Institute a letter urging it to register their analysts — who are testifying in legislative committees and contacting legislators — as lobbyists.

“The Goldwater Institute made 26 requests to speak before the 49th Legislature alone,” Bjelland wrote. “The Ninth Special Session was called at the institute’s urging relating to putting the issue of the right to a secret ballot before the voters… to the extent that employees of the principal will be engaging in the conduct regulated by Arizona law as noted above, each of these people must be added to the principal’s registration.”

Secretary of State Ken Bennett said he disagreed with the Goldwater Institute’s interpretation of the exemption from the statute.

“When you start to express positions on whether legislation is good or bad, that is no longer answering technical questions and that is no longer technical information,” he said.

Bennett said his office would look into new legislation to clarify the language before the impasse with the institute could be laid to rest.

Well, quite the opposit has occurred. The Goldwater Institute had one of its ready and willing stooges, Rep. Justin Olson (R-Mesa), sponsor HB 2565 defining non-profit groups as being outside the scope of "lobbyist" organizations, and thus exempt. Bill eyes definition of who is lobbyist:

The bill is designed to resolve a running debate between the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Secretary of State's Office by putting non-profit groups such as the institute outside the definition of "lobbyist."

That would mean no need to adhere to state laws that limit gifts to public officials or to identify the interest a person represents when testifying to the Legislature. It also would exempt such groups from requirements to file quarterly public reports on spending.

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings   Due to the lateness of the hour, this post will cover only Monday's schedule at the Arizona Capitol. A post on the rest of the weeks schedule will go up Monday night. I'm not going into a lot of depth here tonight, so if an agenda or … Read more