Not Friends of Steve Farley

Link: www.explorernews.com.

Steve Farley, Democratic nominee for State House in LD 28, former Tucson city council candidate, and public transportation activist, has been catching some flak from the red end of the media spectrum for some of his remarks about some of the GOP nominees for state lege in southern Arizona. Farley laid down some red meat for the crowd at Democrats of Greater Tucson, and a Star reporter was there to catch it:

Quoting Farley:

"We need to go out and knock them down," said Steve Farley, a
Democratic candidate in District 28. "We need to let Republicans know
that you cannot go out and vote for these people.

"These people are un-American, there is no other way of saying it," he said. "These people need to be taken down."

You go, boy. I’m all in favor of calling a spade a spade. But some blow-back might be expected from such rhetoric.

Steve says he was referring specifically to two far-right candidates in LD 26, who bested more moderate Republicans in the primary: David Jorgenson for the House, and Al Melvin for the Senate. I asked Farley about his comments via email, and he defended the ideas, but rued his choice of words.

"Eliminating public education is not an American value. Concentration camps for immigrants is not an American value. Forcing women to get pregnant each time they have sex is not an American value.

That being said, I perhaps should not have used the term "un-American". I was caught up in the heat of the moment in an audience of partisan Democrats, in the context of the Bushites’ tirade of all dissenters as "un-American" and variations of the term. The context was really, WE’RE not un-American for criticizing boneheaded policy by Republicans; what’s REALLY un-American is neo-fascist BS like what these guys Melvin & Jorgenson are spouting about controlling every aspect of all our lives for the sake of their own personal beliefs.

So, I’m not going to continue to use the term, as it does put me on the level of Cheney & Rumsfeld, somewhere I don’t want to be. I apologize for doing so. But I will continue to speak out against repellent political beliefs where I encounter them. I should have plenty of opportunities in the Legislature…"

It’s good to see someone in public life who isn’t afraid to speak like a human being rather than a focus group. And who isn’t so egotistical they can’t even admit to a foible.

I tried to contact Al Melvin, but received no reply to phone messages or email (in fact, I got spam filtered when I tried to send him even the simplest ‘hello’ – this guy didn’t win on his IT operation…).

David Jorgenson did reply to my inquiry and I spoke to him on the phone and via email about Farley’s comments (and other things).

In regard to Farley’s comment about him. Jorgenson’s "short answer" is that "Mr. Farley is wrong." The "long answer" wasn’t all that much longer, really:

"As far as I know, I’ve never met Mr. Farley.

As an American and veteran, I respect Mr. Farley’s right to free speech and his right to be wrong.

He also has the right to move into District 26 and test his Democratic theories.

In the meantime, perhaps the two districts should work together for the benefit of southern Arizona."

Yeah. Like Jorgenson and Melvin are going to represent southern Arizona. They’ve both ran on the idea that they would align themselves with Maricopa, and reportedly signed pledges to vote the Maricopa party line in exchange for state party support. If that’s true, they’re not sourthern Arizonans in any meaningful sense: they’re Quislings.

UPDATE 10/7: the accuracy of the claim that Melvin and Jorgenson have signed a pledge to follow the party line has been challenged in comments. I think this is pretty good substantiation of the claim that these candidates will subordinate the interests of their constituents.

Jorgenson hadn’t actually heard about Farley’s comments until I told him. Which means he doesn’t read the paper often or listen to local right-wing radio much. At least one of those things is good news…

But what I found most curious about Mr. Jorgenson is that he refused to express any opinion on some the key issues of the day that many would fairly judge as being litmus tests for how "American" one is. I asked Jorgenson (and Melvin, though it got spam-filtered):

"I would like to know if you agree with the bargain struck by the Adminsitration
that would allow the President to be the sole interpreter of the Geneva
Conventions, allowing the continuation of interrogation techniques often
characterized as ‘torture lite’, including induced hypothermia, stress
positions, waterboarding (simulated drowning), and sexual humiliation.

Do you agree with the suspension of the right of habeus corpus to those declared
‘illegal enemy combatants’ by the Adminsration, even American citizens?

Do you think that terrorists should be tried by military tribunals in which the
accused has no right so see the evidence against him, as the Bush
Administration advocates?"

Now, to me, these things are the sine qua non of American values: belief in basic human rights, being offended by extra-judicial detention, and an adherance to the basic doctrines of legal due process which are foundational to a civilized society.

Jorgenson weaseled:

"These questions are
outside of the scope of my legislative race nor are they within my
ability to influence their outcome."

Come on. A hyper-patriotic, super-conservative guy like Jorgenson – a veteran – has no position on supporting the methods by which his Commander-in-Chief, his President, and his party’s leader is fighting the holy War on Terra?

Outside the scope of race? Not within his ability to influence? This is a guy who rode the immigration issue into office. That’s a federal issue, textually commited to control of the U.S. Congress by our Constitution. Didn’t stop Jorgenson (and Melvin) from blathering about that issue ’til the cows came home. Now, all of a sudden, he can’t even have an opinion about some issues because of federalism?

Farley may or may not be right about Jorgenson and Melvin being "un-American" – I can’t say, because they won’t even answer basic questions about their views. But I can say for sure that for failing to talk to me, Melvin is an arrogant coward. And for failing to answer me, Jorgenson is a moral coward. They wouldn’t speak out or stand up for their beliefs or their values, or make the case that their party’s policies are consistent with America’s values: in my book, that’s just cowardice.

So, perhaps what Steve should have said is, "These people are cowards, there is no other way of saying it." I humbly offer use of my terminology next time he wants to serve red meat. To Jorgenson and Melvin, I recommend a new campaign slogan, "Elect the Cowards!"

Of course, they could always prove me wrong by answering my questions…