OMG! WSJ and Conservatives Cry Foul on Political Attacks

Or maybe it's WTF?

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column today titled "Obama's Attack Machine" that complains Democrats are being too rough on Virginia Republican and Minority Whip Ed Cantor by pointing out he and the Republicans in Congress have nothing better to do than get in the way of solving -their- economic mess.

I'm sure I'm not the only one crying crocodile tears for the conservatives and Mr. Cantor. To quote Jack Valenti, "Politics ain't tidily-winks." But Strassel's column simply reminds me that Republicans and conservatives can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Of course, over-hyped, over-thought rhetoric is hardly the domain of just Democrats. I don't think too many honest people would argue they're as good at it as Republicans are or can raise the money to trash people as Republicans have done in the past. I continue to laugh whenever I hear comments about "the biased mainstream media," especially when it comes from TV stations or newspapers owned by her boss, Rupert Murdoch. That, indeed, is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Why it is that papers such as the WSJ forget which party got us into this mess in the first place through deregulation and tax cuts based on failed economic strategies such as Laffer's Curve (appropriately named, actually)? To think we were going to somehow grow our way out of this using those same theories that got us here would be insane. Had they worked, Strassel may have a point. But they failed, which means she doesn't have a point or an argument.

Rep. Cantor and other Republicans attempting to make political hay out of the demise of the American Middle Class and the cost of fixing their problem by whining deserves public chastising in every way possible. So if some groups want to spank them in public using their own money, that seems to me to be a perfect example of the same free speech conservatives use to bash anyone who doesn't agree with them. It sure never stopped them before when they held power. Isn't turn about is fair play. Put another way, payback is a bi---, well, you know.

As for going after Cantor's wife, as wrong as that should be, that never stopped Republicans before. Why do they get to complain now? Why is it okay when they do it? Maybe if Republicans swore to never, ever bring someone's wife or families into campaigns or issues in the future, and that if they did, whomever was the potential benefactor would immediately resign from their office, you might get a deal. But when Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reily, Savage and Fox TV promote similar stories about Democrats as if they were facts when they know they're not, all you deserve are crocodile tears.

I take some relish in saying conservatives made the bed, now enjoy sleeping in it.

Judge Sotomayor

It cracks me up that people like Limbaugh are questioning Sotomayor's qualifications and mentioning GW's record of choosing court nominees. I agree: she's no Harriet Miers.

Suggestion for Don Bivens: Choose Both

There are two finalists for the job of Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director and state chairman Don Bivens is deciding between the two sometime this week. His choice is between two well-known Democrats who both could do the job. But my question is this: why pick one when you can get both?

My main concern, having been an Executive Director myself, is that some people have this odd notion that the Executive Director should be a fund-raiser. That's a big mistake. The Executive Director needs to focus on strategy, candidate identification and training, providing assistance to county party organizations, and staff management. Fundraising takes up a tremendous amount of time and you really can't have one person in charge of that as well as everything else. It's an impossible task and I would strongly argue it's a recipe for failure. It's a truly bad idea.

That being said, were Bivens to chose one of the candidates, he'd get a twofer. He'd keep in the fold one of the state's best fundraisers ever doing what she clearly does best, which will be very useful in the coming election. He'd also get someone who has experience in working campaigns, developing strategy, the private sector, managing people, and someone who has the support of a broad range of state and county officials. It's a win-win.

So Don, if you're listening, chose both. The party will be better off for it.

What someone should have said...

There was another circus at the state capitol yesterday. There was nearly five hours of "testimony" (if you can call people giving opinions, but no proof "testimony') at a public hearing held in the Arizona State Senate by Sen. Russell Pearce about how the state and country is going to hell in a hand basket because of "illegal immigrants" and their drain on society. The fact that their claim isn't true is irrelevant. The immigration-mongers needed a forum and Pearce provided it.

What motivated me was the lack of any comment from those who oppose this type of public witch hunt. It was totally absent from yesterday's events and today's news coverage. In my view, this was an opportunity lost. Here's what they could have said..but didn't.

Today, May 21, 2009, Arizona’s citizens were subjected to yet another media circus by Republicans Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas in an attempt to distract attention away from their inability to solve the state’s budget, ongoing investigations into their operations and other managerial problems by discussing an issue they think they know about: immigration.

Today we heard Pearce, Arpaio and Thomas, and a group of hand-chosen, ax-grinding “witnesses” and “experts” make the same old tired arguments that have been shown to be false by federal and state law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, by some of the world’s top research universities including Stanford, Harvard, ASU and U of A, and by well respected think tanks such as the Pew Center for Hispanic Studies. We heard a lot of false accusations, distorted statistics, half-truths and complaints, but nothing about solutions. We heard a lot about enforcement, but nary a word on how to improve the processes that makes our border more manageable and safe.

The fact is, finding a practical solution to solving the immigration problem was not discussed at all. What we heard was how all of the problems facing this state can be scapegoated on the backs of any Hispanic-looking person, whether they are undocumented or not. All of the problems of the world were placed today on the backs of any who sorta kinda, just maybe, possibly, could somehow, however remotely likely, is here without papers. What we heard today was another series of excuses for justifying unconstitutional treatment of citizens and immigrants, the trampling of civil rights and the abuse of power.

These types of hearings give credence to the types of hate that promotes racist, neo-Nazi attacks such the one earlier this month at the Chabad of the East Valley, a Jewish learning center in Chandler. In that attack, swastikas, anti-Jewish comments, and vulgar symbols were spray-painted throughout the building.

These types of hearings give rise to the explosive growth of hate groups in our community, which have grown over 54% since 2000. In fact, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Arizona is one of few states with the fastest growing numbers of hate groups in the nation.

These types of hearings give rise to the stunning increase of hate-ladened comments on newspaper blogs and at protests. At the recent march, YouTube video exists of Sheriff Arpaio’s neo-Nazi supporters giving the “Sieg Heil” salute and yelling “look at the Jew, look at the Jew. ” These are just a couple of disturbing examples of an escalating tide of hate in our community, and it can all be laid at the feet of Pearce, Arpaio and Thomas.

Sen. Pearce will say that he invited others to come and testify and they chose not to, and rightly so. Having a debate doesn’t mean you get asked leading questions that require complex answers or to play “gotcha.” Even the Arizona Republic in Wednesday's editorial said there would be “precious little fact-finding or honest debate” at this hearing, and they were right.

We’re interested in finding solutions to the problem that extend beyond the emotional rhetoric we heard today. Laying the blame for all of society’s ills on poor people who can’t defend or speak for themselves because of governmental policies is simply put, cowardly.

We call on the state’s more reasonable politicians to join us and let’s discuss solutions that solve the economic and border issues in a way that is fair and that increases opportunity for everyone. Let’s create public informational forums where the real facts can be presented and discussed. We will never solve the problem by pointing fingers and laying blame. We’ll solve it by thinking (with the big head) and working together to find something that works for everyone while honoring our nation’s commitment to justice and fairness.

Putting Pearce, et. al. on notice that they don't get to frame the debate alone is long overdue. It'd be nice if some political party or group of politicians would weigh in and hold these people and their facts up to the bright sunlight of the truth and stop the spread of misinformation. People who have a better and broader grasp of the data need to step up and make their information known. For without some public voice, Pearce, Arpaio and Thomas will continue to drive the immigration debate as they want it to be, not what it really is.

Arizona's New Disgrace

Last night (Sunday, April 19, 2009), a man who worked for the company that sets up mobile speed enforcement cameras was shot in cold blood while parked along the side of the road. The East Valley Tribune had a brief story on the murder and the Arizona Republic (so far) has just a couple of paragraphs on it.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/138169

As heinous as this crime is, what is more troubling are the comments by the readers of the Tribune. If anyone had any question about whether the Dept. of Homeland Security report on the threat of right-wing extremists had any basis in fact, read these comments and then talk to me about how there is no threat by "American patriots with guns."

That these people have a hatred for government so intense that they endorse murder is something that politicians and the media need to get off of their lazy asses and start talking about and explaining how wrong this is. Republicans and Democrats and church leaders and business leaders and everyone else should start reminding people there is no excuse for murder.

But will that happen? I doubt it.

Th Holocaust started this way. This is not a good sign.

If you would like to read the DHS report, you can get it here.

Never Missing An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity

As is my tradition, I got up this morning to watch the Sunday morning talk shows. I don't watch them all even though I could because I have a DVR. On most Sunday's I'll catch "Meet the Press" followed by CBS Sunday Morning and then "Face the Nation."

So I'm flipping channels and I come across TV12's "Sunday Morning Square Off." The lead-in said they were going talk about the recent hearings of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee into the 287(g) program and Arpaio, so I decided to watch that segment. To my mind "Sunday Square Off" isn't the most interesting or intellectually challenging of programs because host Rick Debruhl seems to do all he can to chuck softballs at his guests. There never really seems to be any tough discussion on any issue. Maybe that's the way they designed the program or the type of host Debruhl is, but it's also indicative of the news media in this town and how it covers politics in this state. As Steve Lemons of the New Times is so fond of saying, "I wonder when they'll grow a pair."

So the panel today has three guests: Republican House Representative Rich Crandall (R-19), Democratic House Minority Whip Chad Campbell (D-14) and Arizona Republic Reporter Rob Robb. The Judiciary/Arpaio issue was discussed in the second segment. Debruhl started out by talking about how the hearing was pitched (at least interpreted here in Arizona) as being an hearing about Arpaio, but turned out to be more of a hearing on the 287(g) program and immigration enforcement in general. At this point, Rich Crandall sidestepped the hearing issue by praising Mesa Mayor Scott Smith who met with Arpaio after that silly 2AM Mesa City Hall raid. Crandall called Smith "courageous" for meeting with Arpaio and asking how the two organizations could work better together. Rob Robb chimed in to throw some support behind Arpaio for letting his guys get trained under 287(g), but criticized him for sending hundreds of deputies and posse members into predominantly Hispanic areas of the county and not being able to see that as profiling.

So what did the Democrat's House Minority Whip Chad Campbell have to say? Nothing. Nada. Zip. No support for Mary Rose Wilcox or the delegation that went to Washington. Not a word about supporting the purpose of the hearing, which was to explore civil rights violations that occur in his district against his constituents in his state. Not a word about how looking into the abuses of Arpaio may be a good thing. The only thing we heard from Democratic leadership was a comment on how the state could use the $1.6M back that the legislature gave specifically to Arpaio that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has yet to accept.

I'm sure there's some reason for Democratic leadership to run to the hills whenever Joe Arpaio's name or treatment of Arizona's Hispanic citizens is brought up. But give me a freakin' break; you can't even throw a bone of support to Wilcox? You can't even agree with Democratic leadership at the national level that the investigations are welcome? Why the silence? What specific reelection purpose does it serve?

Mr. Campbell could have said something like this: "While there are clearly people who support what Sheriff Arpaio is doing, there are many others who feel the way he is going about it violates laws and Constitutional rights. The purpose of the hearing wasn't just to go after Arapio, but to explore how an important mission is being misused and U.S. citizens are being treated as criminals only because of their heritage. That's illegal in this country and it should be. If Arpaio survives this investigation unscathed, then what he proclaims must be correct. However, if he doesn't and his ways of using his 287(g) agreement is found to be illegal, he should be held accountable. He's always wanting us to take his word for things and there's nothing wrong with occasionally checking to verify his word is good."

But he didn't. He commented on the money.

I have argued many times that the reason Democrats are so poor at convincing Arizonans there is a better way to do immigration enforcement is because they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to make our views known and succinct. How can anyone know your position if you never talk about it when others are? How can voters know there is a broader perspective to the problem if you don't articulate it? I guess they're supposed to know the Democratic Leadership's position by attending immigration conferences or watching floor C.O.W. debates, or worse yet, by osmosis...like that happens.

This is just another example of a golden opportunity lost.

Desert Politics Returning To The Air?

Just to let folks know, there's a very good chance that Desert Politics will be back on the air shortly. Thanks to a lot of encouragement, the offer of some to underwrite the time, I'm currently in discussions with two radio stations about putting the show back on the air. Naturally, I'm looking for the best package, but the bottom line is we'll probably have the show back on the air in Phoenix very soon.

I'll keep you posted!