Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Profiles in Courage they are Not.

Earlier this year, the Washington Post provided examples of vulnerable Congressional Democrats--including Harry Mitchell-- voting against procedural motions in order to look independent. 

Later, Mitchell's last-minute vote switch on a Republican amendment that would have prohibited illegal aliens from benefiting from the farm bill threw the House into chaos. 

Now we learn that Mitchell and Giffords were hovering around the well of the House in order to cast a yes vote for the bailout bill if Nancy Pelosi had been able to get enough votes that Mitchell and Giffords could have put the issue over the top.

Still, a few lawmakers, among them freshman Democrat Harry Mitchell of Arizona, hung around in the well, potentially ready to switch. Registered as a "no," Mitchell held a green "yes" voting card. Also from Arizona, Democratic freshman Gabrielle Giffords stood nearby.

Can you picture Mitchell hovering by the vote machine, holding a green "yes" card in one hand and a red "nay" card in the other hand, looking expectantly at Nancy Pelosi and waiting to see if his vote was needed?

Now that's leadership.

"Paton's Place" or "How Green is their Valle"

I have had quite a bit of feedback about my predictions that it's going to be a Republican year in Arizona.  I think Republicans are going to pick up two seats in the House and one seat in the Senate.  The Democrats argue that, in the House for example, they are going to keep all six seats that they won in 2006 and pick up four more. 

Today's Republic lays out the Democratic strategy.

In contested GOP primaries, the more conservative candidate prevailed in races from Anthem to Tucson. That makes for more striking contrasts with the Democrats, many of whom have been carefully groomed to strike a moderate tone.

This strategy looks great on paper.  Run high quality candidates and groom them to appear moderate in comparison to their conservative counterparts.   I think the best way to debunk this strategy is to spotlight an individual race. The Star had a similar article a few weeks ago and highlighted District 30 as one of the "Hot Races."  So let's look at the District 30 Senate Race.

Republicans have a 13 point advantage in the Southern Arizona district that includes Green Valley and parts of east Tucson.  Senate President Tim Bee currently holds the Senate seat and State Representative Jonathan Paton and Democratic newcomer Georgette Valle are vying to replace him. 

On paper, this district fits the Democratic strategy perfectly.  Paton is Conservative and Valle served in the Washington State Legislature for 24 years.

That's about as far as the Democratic strategy gets before it falls apart.  Check out this debate that the candidates held at KUAT in Tucson. 

About a minute into the clip, Valle talks about how important water issues are to the people of...Washington.  She corrects herself even before she finishes the word, but the debate goes down from there. 

Paton points out that the collapsing state budget is the most important issue facing the state and when asked to respond, Valle says that we should wait to tackle the budget because she has already started on her Christmas shopping.  I thought she was joking, but she continued to argue that the state doesn't need to work on the budget now because she wants to wait for the economy to come back.   Later she makes a bizarre assertion that we could raise revenue by "capturing the football teams that come to Southern Arizona." 

Then she opines that the legislature shouldn't go into special session because "It was 28 Democrats and 4 Republicans who passed the current budget, so I think we should give the economy a chance to catch up a bit."  Of course, there are only 27 Democrats in the House so she's already optimistic about the Democratic chances.   

Perhaps more troubling than her complete lack of understanding of the budget--or her knowledge about how many Democrats are in the House--is her inability to finish an answer.  Several of her responses simply trail off or ramble on until the reporters are forced to interupt her. 

Don't take my word for it.  Here's what the Tucson Citizen said about Valle.

Georgette Valle, the Democratic contender, also has a deep understanding of state government - Washington state, that is. She served 24 years in the Legislature there.

Alas, even while campaigning for the Arizona seat being vacated by Tim Bee, Valle continually says "here in Washington" and "you people in Arizona" and "your budget." She gives the impression that she's not an Arizonan.

More worrisome, she seems to have no grasp of the restrictions on our lawmakers.

Paton on the other hand has served four years in the House, and one tour in Iraq.  He is responsible for the CPS restructuring bills, drafted the law that targets human smuggling and even wrote the bill that allows cage fighting. 

Here's what the Republic said about Paton's Cage Fighting bill on Sunday.

With the new legislation, the state will have an opportunity to cash in on big-money live gates that follow these cards around the nation. There already is a built-in fan base here because Arizona is one of the top pay-per-view markets, according to promoters.

So we have the 37 year old Iraq war vet who is an expert on key issues, has a record of accomplishment and has represented District 30 for four years.  He's being challenged by an 83 year old from Washington who wants to wait and see if her Christmas shopping fixes the budget and doesn't know how many Democrats are in the state House. 

That's considered a "Hot Race" even though Paton has a 13 point registration advantage.  Factor those facts in the next time you hear that the State Democratic Party fielding candidates who have been "carefully groomed to strike a moderate tone."

The Truth Behind Fannie and Freddie

The mainstream media and the Democratic party would like you to believe that the financial crisis was caused by the now discredited Republican era of deregulation that started in the Regan administration and ultimately crashed and burned with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. 

However, Republicans began arguing as early as 2005 that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their hoards of lobbyists, captured Democratic Congressmen and media enablers were distorting financial markets and would eventually cause a crisis.  This video is a shocking reminder of that history.

Who's the Bully Now?

If you aren't paying close attention, you may miss the significance of this obscure Associated Press article. 

WASHINGTON - It took a special House committee more than a year of investigating, at a cost of $500,000, to validate GOP claims that majority Democrats made the wrong call on a contested vote one late night in the summer of 2007. The dispute fed into the highly partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill that continues to this day. "One fact is indisputable," according to the report Thursday by the six-member bipartisan panel. The final vote was "incorrect.

The incident to which the article refers is this maelstrom that caused the US House of Representatives to devolve into chaos just over a year ago. What the article doesn't mention is that the meltdown revolved around the vote of one Congressman--Harry Mitchell.

I wrote about the original incident here.  Here's the incredible video.

It is indeed chaotic, so let me explain what's happening.  Congress is debating the Agriculture bill and Republicans are trying to amend the bill to ensure that none of the funds are channeled to illegal aliens.  When it's clear that the amendment is going to lose, Mitchell and another vulnerable Democrat, Nick Lampson of Texas, vote with the Republicans for political cover.  But the Democratic floor leader loses track of the vote count and the Republican amendment wins.  Democratic leadership, in clear violation of the rules, re-opens the vote and lets Lampson and Mitchell change their votes.  The video makes it clear that Mitchell is the last one to switch and it is his vote that defeats the amendment. 

Now that a bipartisan commission has spent $500,000 and one year investigating the event and concluded the maneuver was indisputably incorrect, I think there are three lessons that we can learn from Congressman Mitchell's pivotal role in the meltdown.

The first lesson the incident demonstrates is that the image that Mitchell has crafted as the avuncular former teacher, "Frank Capra goes to Washington" is bunk.  Mitchell was the key vote in the biggest partisan dirty trick of the last Congress.  This was the only incident that rose to the level of investigation and even the Democrats concede that they crossed the line.  Mitchell cast the deciding vote in the partisan meltdown. 

Second, the incident provides a graphic demonstration that Mitchell is manipulating his voting record in order to hide the fact that he is voting lock step with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. 

The Washington Post has reported that vulnerable Democrats--including Mitchell--routinely vote no on procedural matters in order to look independent.  Mitchell, for example voted "Nay" on 61% of the votes to approve the Daily Journal.  This tactic is gutless and unprofessional.

Finally, the incident demonstrates that when the chips are down, Mitchell will sacrifice the voters of his district in order to empower Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.  This vote was an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits from the Farm Bill.  The amendment is similar to Proposition 300 which was approved by Arizonans in the same election that brought Mitchell to office.  There's no breakdown by congressional district, but the proposition passed with 73% of the vote in Maricopa county.  Mitchell is clearly way out of step on this issue.

So one incident destroys three carefully crafted myths.  Mitchell is not the Capraesque former teacher who sets aside partisan politics in order to represent the interests of his district independently of the Democratic leadership. 

Mitchell is actually a hardcore partisan who votes with the Republicans on procedural issues in order to hide his total devotion to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.  And when forced to chose between his constituents and that leadership, chooses Pelosi every time.

Not that you will ever read that in the Mainstream Media.

For Play

Here's a great example of a sophisticated dirty trick.  Check out this website that claims to be for the Marriage Amendment--Proposition 102.  The site is very sophisticated and looks like a legitimate pro 102 site.  However as you get deeper into the site, the arguments "for" Proposition 102 get more outrageous.  Here's an example.

It is estimated that, since 2006, approximately 20,000 heterosexual marriages have failed in Arizona due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs. State authorities fear that we may be on a slippery slope of failed heterosexual marriages and broken families if we don't take immediate action to pass Prop 102.

Opponents of the prop 102 might declare that the site is some sort of parody, but it doesn't contain any disclosures. The last time that the marriage amendment was on the ballot, opponents put up a similar site and even members of the media were fooled.  Some media coverage included quotes from the mock site.

Not only does the site not ever disclose that it's not really a Pro 102 site, it never discloses who actually paid for it.  So in addition to being deceptive, it's illegal.  I hope this is not a "for-shadowing" (pardon the pun) of things to come.

The Days of Supplication have Ended

Back in the Jurassic Period when I was running for the Legislature, or advising candidates who were running for the Legislature, I described the Arizona Republic Editorial Board interview as "the most important 15 minutes of the campaign."  Back in the day, the Republic interview could make or break a campaign.  The paper had many more subscribers than it does today and the population of the Valley was much smaller, so the penetration was much higher.  The Republic's opinion was respected such that voters would take the final Sunday editorial into the voting booth

The Mainstream Media's influence has been further eroded by the rise of alternative media and Clean Elections.  Candidates can get their message out via the blogs, email trees and talk radio.  Plus Clean Elections ensures that candidates will have enough resources to bypass the media. 

The papers often marginalize themselves as well.  I spoke at the Mesa Republican Women's lunch a couple days after the primary and to illustrate the decline of the Editorial Board's influence, I asked this question. "You guys are in the middle of District 5 and had the most contested and well-covered congressional Primary in the entire state.  Can any of you tell me who the Republic endorsed?"  Silence. Finally, I said.  "Well, it wasn't Schweikert, or Bitter-Smith, or Knaperek...or Anderson, so it must have been..." Someone finally said "Ogsbury?"  Indeed, the Republic wrote a glowing editorial of Jim Ogsbury who came in a solid fifth.

I don't say that to give Jim a hard time.  He worked hard and ran a good race; he was simply overwhelmed by an extremely talented field. But that's the point.  The Republic managed to demonstrate its cluelessness as well as its lack of influence in one pick. 

To be sure, the Republic can occasionally swing votes.  They called J.D. Hayworth a bully in 2006 and the DCCC put $500,000 behind it and it certainly moved some votes.  (I would also argue that the Republic's endorsement of Barry Wong in the ACC race made the difference since he only won by about 1,000 votes in a statewide race.)

In hindsight, of course, JD shouldn't have attended the editorial board interview.  That's because the paper took him to task for the interview itself.

In a meeting last week with The Republic's Editorial Board, Hayworth repeatedly positioned himself like a smirking hawk, inches from the face of his "prey," Mitchell , while the Democrat responded to questions. For that overbearing attempt at intimidation, Hayworth deserves a sound rap on the knuckles.

I had a similar experience when I lost my race for the Corporation Commission in 1994, Richard De Uriarte opined that it was good that I lost, because--based on the editorial board interview--he was "tired of hearing how smart I thought I was."  Nice.

Many of you know that I'm running for the County Hospital Oversight Board.  I decided to attend the Republic Editorial Board interview but neither of my opponents attended the meeting.  (One of them had a good excuse and may re-schedule.)  The Republic combined my district with another one and only one of those candidates attended.  So of the five candidates from two districts, only two of us attended the interview.

Why should they attend?  The paper's influence is vastly diminished, some of the Board's  positions--like the Ogsbury endorsement--are head spinning in their irrationality and everything you say (or even where you sit) will be used against you. 

I enjoyed the interview.  I thought it was polite and professional.  But when Republic reporter Yvonne Wingett put her tape recorder on the table, I put mine on the table as well.

So I wasn't surprised today when I saw a press release from Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas announcing that they would not be meeting with the paper, or seeking its endorsement.

John McCain isn’t going to be getting the New York Times endorsement over Barack Obama.  And we have a hunch that the Arizona Republic probably isn’t going to be touting our re-election campaigns either.

And that’s OK, because it would seriously confuse our supporters were we to seek the Republic’s editorial endorsement, as candidates typically do.

This is why we took the unusual step of politely and respectfully declining the paper’s recent offer to solicit its support by appearing before its editorial board with our opponents.

Good move.  Thomas and Arpaio have nothing to gain and everything to lose.  Why show up to kiss the ring knowing that they will use it to knock out your teeth? 

I think that this election clyce marks the turning point.  The days of supplication have ended. "Politely and respectfully declining"-- I think you will see a lot more of that in the future. 

Can't Win for Losing

Poor John McCain.  The Left chastises him for all the votes he missed while running for President and then when he suspends his campaign activities and returns to Washington to address the financial crisis, he gets mocked by Harry Reid, David Letterman...and Ted Prezelski. 

Tedski over at Rum Romanism and Rebellion has offered to suspend his blog during the crisis and challenged me to do the same thing.   

I am suspending activities on this blog while I put my energies into resolving the current financial crisis. I call on Espresso Pundit to do the same.

Actually, I think I will do my part by working hard, blogging and paying my mortgage.  You know, all the things that annoy liberals. 

Where's Janet? Updated

On August 28th, metro Phoenix was hit by a massive storm that destroyed ASU's new $8.5 million training facility, knocked out power to thousands of homes and caused extensive property damage. 

The Governor swung into action and issued this report detailing the implementation of the emergency management plans.  Of course, the report was from Dean Martin because the Governor was in Denver at the Democratic Convention.

Last week, Google announced that it's pulling out of Phoenix.  That's not a big deal, Google came with a lot of Gubernatorial fanfare, but ultimately it was meaningless to the Arizona economy.  Of course, the Governor couldn't have really commented anyway.  She was in Ohio interviewing for Attorney General campaigning for Barack Obama.

Today, the Senate and House Appropriations Committee chairmen announced that they are going to hold a  press conference on Tuesday morning to ask the governor to address the state’s growing budget crisis. 

Of course, she's not going to pay attention.  That's not just because the budget chairmen are Republicans who have been complaining about the budget for a year...it's because she's like, you know, in Florida campaigning for Barack Obama.

I don't expect the Governor to be in the office every day, but it would be nice if she were in the office on SOME days. 

The national economic situation seems to be worsening, the state budget is in complete meltdown and we don't know when the current financial crisis will end.  Is Arizona going to be able to rollover its massive debt?  Will we have enough cash to make it through the fiscal year?  Will it be possible to balance the current budget before we have to start working on the next budget?

These are critical questions and it would be nice if the Governor would come back to Arizona and answer some of them.

Update:  One of the commentors reminded me how critical the Democrats were of Tim Bee for going to Washington for three days during the legislative session.  Here's how the Citizen covered it.  I thought this was a key line.

The trip is proof that Bee won't be able to juggle the demands of running the state Senate while running for higher office at the same time, said Emily Bittner, spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party.

Seriously, the Dems claimed that Bee couldn't run for Congress and run the Senate, but they seem to think it's fine for Napolitano to travel the country on behalf of Obama while the State finances melt down. 

Now Politicker AZ is reporting that the Governor is flying to Colorado to campaign for Obama.

Plans are being formulated that would send Gov. Janet Napolitano back out on the stump for Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, according to Napolitano's office.

The governor, who has already campaigned on behalf of the senator from Illinois in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida in the past few weeks, would be going to Colorado for Obama.

"There are tentative plans that would put [Gov. Napolitano] in Colorado next week," said Jeanine L'Ecuyer, the governor's spokeswoman.

Meanwhile, the Business Journal is reporting that next year's budget deficit is approaching $1 billion.

Russell Pearce Profiled in Reason Magazine

I think the case can be made that Russell Pearce has had more influence on Arizona policy in the last five years than any other legislator.  However, it's not just in Arizona; illegal immigration has become a national issue largely because of his efforts.  Here's an interesting profile of Pearce in Reason online. (The headline of the article is negative, but I think Pearce himself would be pleased with the body of the article.)

He wants to end birthright citizenship, slash immigration quotas, and throw up more walls. He has proposed that officials at the state's Child Protective Services be required to root out undocumented children. The representative of a city named Mesa, Pearce co-authored an initiative to ban the use of Spanish in most official communications. Most of all, he thinks anyone who puts "profits above patriotism" ought to be kept from doing business in the state of Arizona. In the summer of 2007, Pearce finally got his wish.

It's going to be a Republican Year

If there's anything I've learned about the mainstream media, it's that they either act like a pack or a herd.  How many times have we seen articles like this one from last week's Star?

With Republican voters favoring conservatives over moderates in this month's primary election, Arizona Democrats believe their chances of retaking the state House in the general election — or at least making significant gains — have new life.

Sure, Democrats are going to take over the State House.  All they have to do is retain the upsets they won in 2006 and then add four new seats.   Give me a break.

Here's a fun quiz.  What was the media reporting before Republicans got crushed in 2006?  How about this.

Salmon and other Republican officials remain hopeful they can gain legislative seats in the state House and Senate, where the GOP is a handful of seats away from a veto-proof supermajority.

In fact, if you put "veto-proof" and "Republican" into the Republic archives you will get 27 articles discussing how the Republicans were going to build a two thirds majority in both houses so they could override Governor Napolitano's vetoes.

Needless to say, it didn't really work out that way. 

The talk of a veto-proof majority in 2006 was evidence of a bombastic GOP leadership and a gullible media reflecting on Republican gains in 2004 and projecting them onto 2006.  Now that same echo chorus is taking Democratic gains from 2006 and projecting them onto 2008. 

However Democrats are about as likely to take over the House in 2008 as Republicans were of getting a supermajority in 2006.

On March 20th I wrote a post called "A Republican Year?" in which I suggested that Arizona Republicans were going to make significant gains in November.

McCain is obviously going to win Arizona, so the national Republican and Democratic parties aren't going to spend a lot of resources on the top of the Arizona ticket.  Combine the lack of outside influence with the fact that McCain energizes the Republican-leaning Independents and moderate Republicans who will turn out in droves, and I think you have the makings for unusually high Republican turnout.

Since then three things have happened that make me even more confident that 2008 will be a Republican year in Arizona.  First, of course is that Sarah Palin--and the media/Democratic Party's over the top reaction to her--have mobilized the Republican base.

Second is that I think it's becoming clear that McCain is appealing to moderate Republicans and Republican leaning Independent voters.  Those voters are now more likely to come to the polls and they are likely to vote Republican down the ballot. 

I've been searching for a way to make the point that McCain appeals to the "Reagan Democrats."  I was actually thinking about this post while on the 202 last week when this truck blew by me.  It's hard to make the image out because I took the shot at full zoom through my windshield while going about 75 MPH, but the sticker in the middle of the rear window says USMC.  The one to the right of that is a new McCain '08 sticker and the one on the left bumper say "Union Carpenter."

If Romney were the nominee, I think this guy would have stayed home.  If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, this guy would probably have voted a Democratic ticket.  Now he has a McCain sticker on his truck and I think he's likely to vote Republican as he makes his way down the ballot.

The final factor that predicts large gains for Arizona Republicans is that Republicans have been making gains nationally.  In fact, for the first time since 2006, Republicans are leading the generic ballot.  Here's a graph from Gallup.

This graph shows that when I wrote my original post, Republicans trailed Democrats by 15 points.  Now the number is three.  And when Gallup adjusted the poll to reflect most likely voters, Republicans have a five point edge.  That led Gallup to conclude:

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So how do these three factors--Palin energizes the base, McCain energizes the Independents and Republicans gain nationally--affect Arizona in November?  Here's how I think it will play out. 

State Legislature

If the three trends that I've described actually prove true on election day, then Republicans will gain at least two seats in the House and one in the Senate.

Republicans are favored in the Pinal County seat that Pete Rios has vacated in District 23.

Democrats will have trouble repeating their upset victories in the District 26 (Northern Tucson and Oro Valley).  Al Melvin has now managed to defeat both Toni Hellon and Pete Hershberger and should have no problem winning the Senate seat.  The House seat is likely to go Republican as well. 

Republicans will probably pick up a seat in District 24 (Yuma).  And if all three trends maintain their strength, then Republicans should regain a seat in District 10 as well. 

Democrats have essentially already lost the District 11 seat held by Mark DeSimone, and Republicans have essentially already lost the District 25 seat held by Jennifer Burns.  However, Burns was a reliable Democratic vote and DeSimone's replacement John Altman is a conservative Republican, so even though Republicans don't officially gain a seat, they add the equivalent of one seat to the caucus.

Meanwhile, Democrats argue that Conservative victories in the Primary make Republicans vulnerable in Districts 26 and 30.  And that registration inroads--and a ton of cash--make Speaker Weiers vulnerable in 10.  That may have been true in 2006 with Napolitano, Goddard and Pederson on the ballot and Republicans screwing up Congress, but I don't see it this year.

I think the most likely scenario is that Melvin wins the District 26 Senate seat and two of the four House seats go Republican.  If all three trends come together in a perfect storm, then Republicans could conceivably pick up four house seats.

Congress 

Congressional races are harder to predict because they are less random.  Voters are more likely to know the candidates and they may cross over.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if people vote for John McCain and Gabby Giffords. 

Six months ago, I would have said that all three of the Congressional Districts that are currently in play would go Democratic.  The power of incumbency is so overwhelming that Mitchell and Giffords should be safe and the Republican brand in District one should be so damaged that Kirkpatrick would defeat Hay.

However, the McCain, Palin and Generic Ballot trends make it more likely that these Districts revert to normal voting patterns.  Let's face it, District 5 is a Republican seat.  If the trends hold and he doesn't get outspent 4 to 1, Schweikert should beat Mitchell. 

In District one, there's no incumbent, the registration is about equal and a lot of the Democrats are of the conservative "blue dog" variety.  If trends hold, Sidney Hay should win that seat.

District 8 is tougher.  I think Gabby will have a lot of cross over voters and the numbers are pretty equal.  In my perfect storm scenario, Tim Bee could win, but I think it will be a tough race. 

Maricopa County Attorney

Give me a break.  Thomas by double digits.

For the Archive

It's tough to go on record with a post like this.  If I'm wrong, the rest of my career will be "remember how bad Patterson botched it in 2008."  And if I'm right, the media will be treating the Republican victories like conventional wisdom. 

But anyone can go along with the herd.  This post describes current trends that I  think have been ignored by the Mainstream Media together with the implications of those trends.

My analysis may be wrong, but it's certainly not conventional

I welcome your (polite) comments.