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!

Student Abuser: MCCCD Board Member Jerry Walker

The East Valley Tribune paints MCCCD Governing Board Member Jerry D. Walker as an unprofessional, out-of-control, political ideologue who will go so far as to publicly ridicule students he's supposed to be working on behalf of with whom he doesn't agree. The story, titled "Views of MCCCD students, official clash" is a ringing indictment of a guy whose goal cannot be the expansion of education opportunities for students of the Maricopa County Community College District, but the political indoctrination based on fear and control.

Walker comes across as the type of conservative who finds bogey men and conspiracies at every turn. He referred to the Student Public Policy Forum trips as "a liberal conspiracy" with "socialist" objectives. Surprisingly, he actually convinced Board President Colleen Clark that it was some form of commie plot and she actually ran on eliminating the program in her 2006 election campaign (scary thought). Once she got there, however, Clark saw for herself that it wasn't a conspiracy at all, in fact she now supports the program.

“The understanding in public policy and advocacy that it provides students, the research and training and verbal presentation, I think all of that is positive.”

MCCCS Board President Colleen Clark

Walker is just the kind of guy we DON'T need. Worse yet, according to the story, this joker is a wannabe Baptist Minister. Now what type of Baptist minister spoke "with the male students in his assigned group, telling mildly raunchy jokes?" What type of minister brings a student to tears by "verbally attacking" her and chasing her down the hall, forcing her to retreat to the restroom to get away from him? Doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of Holy Spirit running through his veins now does it?

Let's hope the MCCCD board seriously punishes Walker for his actions and let's hope someone with a little more compassion and desire to improve education steps up and runs against this crazy S.O.B. in 2010. He deserves to lose.

It's Official - Arizona is a Low Tax State

Nope, I'm not making it up! It's official. So official in fact, it was reported in the newspaper. In the March 14, 2009 editorial page of the East Valley Tribune, the papers reports that according to a new George Mason University study, "Arizonans can be proud that they live in one of the 'freest' state (sic) in the Union, as measured by keeping government out of our lives and" (here's the money quote) "taking as little of our tax money as possible."

So I guess this means we won't be hearing any more of that baloney about how overtaxed we are. I wonder what the Goldwater Institute and the local chapter of "Americans for Prosperity" are going to do now that their pet peeve has been disproved?

The report is titled "Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom" and it's a free PDF download.

Upcoming ADP Chairman Vote

Ever since the last ADP election and subsequent resignation of Paul Eckerstom as the new chair, I've tried to look for signs of intellectual life at the ADP. I've tried to see if anyone there really "gets it" that things are broken and simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not solve all of the organization's problems. I've tried to find any sign that the targeting of districts, ownership of state level races by the ADP and the manhandling (person-handling?) of candidates by ADP staff is a train wreck. I've looked high and low for clues that people recognize the Napolitano years of top-down, authoritarian control of the ADP was a bad thing that got us nowhere politically. I've tried to see if those who developed and mismanaged the state's disastrous 2008 legislative campaigns would see fit to find other lines of work on their own or have it be suggested strongly that they do (at least one got the message). And I've searched for reassurances that Don Bivens really has listened to the base and will take their concerns to heart.

I've talked to a lot of people in the party, from activists to PCs to state committee members. Because of Desert Politics, I've spoken to other members of the fourth estate including other radio hosts and newspaper reporters (radio and TV people don't talk to one another). What I hear is that people really aren't crazy about Bivens being chairman again. What I hear is people will vote for him --only-- because of his connections to money or because there is no other candidate. Out of the 30 or so people I've spoken to, whether they're on the state committee, an average Democrat, or in the media, only a handful have complete confidence that Bivens has learned enough of a lesson to implement the changes needed to win in 2010. Maybe more are out there, but they're sure not making themselves known. Nearly everyone I've spoken to has some level of doubt. I wish that wasn't the case.

Some are out there saying Bivens is the only one who can raise the money we need. I would argue that's not enough if the organizational and strategic changes won't happen. The reasons people give to the party (time or money) is because it's headed in the right direction, NOT just because the party needs something. Money should be given enthusiastically, not begrudgingly. If you need an example, look at the Obama campaign.

Even a group of young Democrats organized under the banner "Building A Stronger ADP," came out and said what they thought needed to be done, which sounded an awful lot alike what some of us were saying right after the election fiasco. The bottom line is people are NOT expressing confidence in Bivens, current leadership or management at this point. Otherwise, why would we still be having this discussion?

I was at a meeting earlier where a county chair and member of the legislature spoke. Both were upbeat, but both said some good things and they said a couple of things that concern me. The first was the apparent decision by someone or some group somewhere that County parties are not going to be involved in state legislative races and that races would continue to be targeted. That stunned me because I thought we had figured out that doesn't work. The second was the idea that our "democratic" message is getting out and that the people are wising up to Republican failures. I don't know about you, but I read a lot and listen a lot and I hear next to nothing about the Democratic views on this stuff. You hear a couple of sound bites or one sentence retorts, but isn't enough. The ADP is typically stone cold silent on the events of the day. Look at the ADP web site. There hasn't been a press release on anything going on down at the capitol in over a week. These things should come out daily, if not hourly. Even reporters ask what the Dems are doing. They want to know where our spine is. How is it that they don't hear this message that those in the party are telling us is being heard? Is it possible we're only hearing ourselves speak? This is a problem.

Then there's the whole hiring a headhunter for the E.D. episode that seems to point out again those in charge are the "Gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's still confusing. But at the end of the day, the Executive Board should have at a minimum been informed and had a say in the hiring of the firm. That they didn't shows the party is still one of exclusion, not inclusion and that isn't the change we need.

But all of this feeds into my sense that a not damn thing has changed or any lesson learned. It's as if Eckerstrom's election never occurred and the status quo has simply decided to ignore that event and keep keeping on with the old way of doing things.

There are people talking about boycotting the meeting so there is no quorum. That scares people at the ADP because they believe they cannot raise money without a permanent chair. I believe postponing the election of a chair in this way is unwise and we have to move on. But like I said, for the life of me, I haven't heard much that indicates to me that lessons were --really-- learned and needed changes --will-- occur. That doesn't give me confidence and it doesn't give others confidence in leadership or the party, which is the opposite of what we need right now.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it yet.

My $.02 worth

As Democrats go back to the drawing board in choosing the party leader on March 7 there are a lot of people wondering whether the message sent by the state committee last time was really heard. As I talk to people, some believe it has been, but when I look a little deeper, I'm not so sure. Here's why.

A lot of people remain unhappy about the 2008 election results. People expected to hear a contrite ADP leadership and expected some senior staff changes by the time of the state reorganization meeting along with some reasonable assessment of what went wrong. They didn't hear any of those. They heard a leadership that pointed the finger in other directions, statements of effectively "staying the course" and explanations that sounded more like C.Y.A. than anything else. As a result, they showed their displeasure by electing Paul Eckerstrom chairman.

Criticism of Paul's election was immediate and intense. Rumors spread he didn't have a job. Some said the chair can only come from Maricopa County since so much work has to be done at the office and the commute is problematic from Tucson. Some suggested that many in the state committee were new and these people voted for Paul because of his speech. Some vocally criticized his perceived lack of fundraising abilities. Some criticized his decision to run in the first place. The result was that instead of falling in line behind a newly and properly elected chairman and moving forward, the party turned on itself and created a level of discord I haven't seen in my years of involvement with the party.

The rumors don't deserve comment, so I won't bother. But the other issues I feel distract us from the real problems in the party and do little to move us forward and prepare for 2010. It is wrong to believe a chairperson can only come from Maricopa County. If corporate CEOs can telecommute from thousands of miles away, there is no excuse why our state chairperson can't telecommute from wherever they are. The ADP owns a car; let staff get in it a couple times a month and go to where the chair is. I think most people would agree it would actually help them to get out of Maricopa County every once in a while. Staff works for the chairperson, not the other way around.

As for the new committee members not knowing what they were doing, I think that is a misread of what happened. I think people clearly knew who Don was and had the same expectations as anyone else on the committee that day. They wanted accountability, explanations or change. They didn't get the former two so they voted for change. It's that simple.

I think it's a mistake to base a decision for chair solely on the actual or perceived ability to raise money. There are plenty of people in the state who could work with whomever the chairperson is and raise money. I've argued in the past that regardless of who gets elected, those who have the ability to raise money for the party have an obligation to do so. I don't care who it is. In my view that includes every elected Democrat in the state. That means Janet Napolitano, Harry Mitchell, Gabby Giffords, Ed Pastor, Raul Grijalva, Ann Kirpatrick, Terry Goddard, all Democratic members of the state legislature and local officials, former state and county leaders, the works. You're Democrats and the party helped you get where you are and some of you helped the party get to where it is today. I'm sure many of these people will help, but for those on the fence or refusing, the party needs your help. Whatever it is that's behind it, ego, feelings, I don't care, put them aside. Step up and lend a hand.

The chairperson decision also needs to be based on the ability to run an organization and move it forward. We need a chairperson who can take a dysfunctional organization and turn it into one that works. We need a chairperson who simply isn't going to rearrange the deck chairs and announce change has occurred. It was announced last week that Devon Rankin will be acting E.D. for the party. I hope that's only temporary and an active search for a permanent E.D. starts soon because Devon is a great fundraiser. That's her forte. Why anyone would want to take her out of that role and put her in a management position at a time of distress or discord simply doesn't make sense to me. We need her raising money, not deciding campaign strategies.

I hope they're not doing this, but I would also strongly argue that putting fundraising in the lap of an Executive Director is a setup for failure. Believe me, I know. It's unfair to the E.D. and it is simply an excuse to take the responsibility off those who should have it. The E.D. is a --management-- position, not a finance position. Keep Devon where she is and find someone outside who knows how to hire, fire, create a salable message, organize people and candidates and work the media. No offense to anyone, but I don't see that person in current staff and I don't see that person in the state.

There's a management training video called "The Abiliene Paradox" that describes a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the best interests of the group because of a failure of communication between its members about their. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. This is what I fear we're seeing happen here. People know they want change, but aren't willing to stand up and say what they really think for fear of some recrimination or being labeled as "not a team player." What I hear on the street isn't what I'm hearing out of the party and that simply cannot be a good thing. Watch the trailer below if you don't get what I mean.



Of course, there's the complimentary concept of Group Think...



I have no idea who will run and if the position is contested who will win. I know what I think needs to be done and I think a lot of others generally seem to agree. Rearranging the deck chairs isn't the change we need or the change we can believe in. In his landmark study "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' author Thomas Kuhn said shifts in paradigms always come from outside the existing one. I believe this last election shows conclusively that our party is in need of a shift, and that only looking in new directions, listening to different voices and encouraging people to share their real thoughts and not just "going along to get along." That doesn't strengthen the party.

That's my two cents worth...

Phoenix City Council Turns To The Right

This past week the Phoenix City Council chose a replacement for Greg Stanton, who left the council to go work for Terry Goddard. I argued here that they ought to chose a Democrat instead of a right-win Republican (Sal Diccicio) who supports racial profiling, Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas and has strange ideas on economic development and is bed with the very developers he criticized while on the council previously. The council had the choice of Dana Kennedy or Sal Rivera and a couple other Democrats. Why give the Republican a leg up in the election?

So who did the Council select? Sal Diccicio.

Apparently, the vote for Sal Rivera was tied 4-4, but for some reason Mayor Gordon switched his support to DiCiccio and he was elected 5-3. So those voting for the right-wing of the Republican Party were Mayor Phil Gordon and City Council members Thelda Williams, Peggy Neely, Maria Baier, and Claude Mattox. Those who voted against DiCiccio were Tom Simplot, Michael Nowakowski and Michael Johnson.

This is a great step backwards and I just don't see how this improves the city's ability to deal with a down economy when you chose someone who simply doesn't understand economic development or the impact that reductions of services impacts citizens. Phoenix needed practical leadership and it got an ideologue.

That's progress?

Change in Show Time

I was informed on Feb. 13 that the time slot for Desert Politics would be moved to 4PM on Saturdays. The reason is the advertising company is paying more for the time slot than I was, so they got 1PM and Desert Politics is now at 4PM.

When will Democrats stand up for Democrats?

One thing that just drives me crazy is when partisan Democrats support Republicans when perfectly good Democrats are running for office or an appointed position. This is particularly mind-numbing when (a) Democrats hold the majority of the votes and (b) the person they're "supporting" is a hard-right Republican.

A case in point is the selection of a replacement for Phoenix City Councilman Greg Stanton. The City Council and the Mayor choose the replacement from a list of residents of the district who submitted their names for consideration. The Council then has about five days to make their choice. There are seven people who will make this selection, wanna guess how many are Democrats? More than enough.

So what's the problem? According to reports I'm hearing, they're all supporting former council Sal Diciccio: a self proclaimed, hard right wing Republican who supports Andy Thomas and Joe Arpaio and had the reputation of being "Mr. No." After he left the Council to run for Congress, those real estate developers whom DiCiccio roundly criticized while on the Council came out of the woodwork to give him him campaign contributions. He also became a developer himself.

He wrote an op-ed in 2007 --supporting-- Arpaio's wasteful lawsuits. In 1996, he supported the tobacco lobby's move to pass a state law making it tougher for cities to pass strict antismoking measures saying "kids will smoke anyway." In June of 2007 he wrote an op-ed in the Arizona Republic that implies that Hispanics are from a "corrupt culture."

And this is the guy the Democrats on the city council are endorsing?

WTF are they thinking?

So let me get this straight: people who want others to believe they're "moderate" and "thoughtful" are going to pick someone like Sal Diciccio for council and give a Republican with extreme views on law enforcement, sides with tobacco lobbyists and equates Hispanics with a "corrupt culture" an appointment to the council? They're willing to give THIS guy a leg up on the election in September when there are other qualified people up for the position? People like Dana Kennedy and Joanna Peters?

I just don't get it.

Arpaio's evil immigration sweeps

I'm a little late posting on this, but during his last showboat in the Buckeye area, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies stopped a car containing a young woman with two young children for not having headlights on. It goes all downhill from there. Sal Reza happened to catch this on video and what he captured was chilling and heartless and immoral.

To make a long story short, the woman, Ciria Lopez, had a warrant out for driving on a suspended license. During the process, the Deputy leaves Lopez' children alone in the car and when he decides to arrest her, he tells the children to "kiss mommy goodbye because she's going back to Mexico." He then tries to chum the kids by giving them stuffed animals, like that'll make the pain easier to bear. You can read the details here on the Phoenix New Times web site (God forbid the rest of the Arizona media pick up on this.)

Some people give me a hard time for pointing this out, but this is the type of stuff the Nazi's did in the early 1930's. They gave kids toys for turning in Jews. To me, this is nothing more than a slow and deliberate ratcheting up of evil that just keeps getting worse and worse, and until good people stand up and say "put an end to this," it will continue. What type of person comes up with the idea of giving the children who are watching their parents being taken away from them a freakin' toy in order to buy their silence? How heartless and inhumane can you possibly get?



The New York Times and the Huffington Post have both picked up on this story and the outrage is beginning to build.

It's about time.

P.S. Stephen Lemons has an update posted on the New Times web site. It's worth a read.

Silliness around speed cameras

If there is an absolutely silly debate going on at the state capital it is the total waste of time arguing about speed cameras. The argument goes that the cameras are, as the new Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said "a tax on all Arizonans." Others have called it a gimmick to raise money for the government.

A "tax on all Arizonans?" Am I missing something? The only way you pay is if you get caught speeding, which a violation of the law. If you don't speed, you don't pay. Sounds like a simple fine to me. I know. I paid one.

Republican Rep. Sam Crump of Anthem, said speed cameras are annoying, unfair, intrusive and even dangerous because of backups as motorists abruptly slow down near cameras. Unfair? To whom? If you're obeying the speed laws, they're not unfair to you. Intrusive? In what way? And dangerous? Maybe if they weren't speeding, they wouldn't have to "abruptly slow down."

What's funny about this is the people who are making the biggest stink are the "law and order" crowd. You know, the same folks that keep asking "what is it about illegal you don't understand?" Exactly. What is it about "don't speed" that they don't understand?

If the state, counties and municipalities make money off of the cameras off of people who are "breaking the law," why should anyone who isn't breaking speeding laws care? Don't want to give money to government, then don't drive more than 11 miles over the speed limit.

After all, if you're all for "law and order," that concept should be pretty easy to do.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory – Arizona Democrats in 2008

Despite record voter registration gains, the election of a Democrat to the presidency, successful campaigns for Congress and the Arizona Corporation Commission and raising over $4M in private, PAC and corporate donations, Democrats in Arizona still managed to lose critically important legislative, county and local elections in 2008. The theories posited by the state Democratic Party include theoretical McCain coattails, Proposition 102 (the Gay Marriage ban), registration disadvantages, and supposed long lines at polling places depressing voter turnout. Others have suggested the reason was poor-quality candidates or campaigns with little or no "viability," with "viability" being defined as "no cash." Still others say it was the lack of a "30-district strategy" for the State and a lack of professionalism and arrogance on the part of State Party staff and those leading the "strategy."

The answer to the big question is easy and it all comes down to this: message, marketing and communication. Unfortunately, none of this was in play in Arizona in the 2008 election cycle and a golden opportunity was lost.

Historical Overview

At the end of the day, political campaigns are marketing campaigns. One of the fundamental basics of marketing is knowing your customer and knowing how to reach them. It's pretty obvious if you think about it. You can't convince anyone to buy your product if they (a) don't know what it is, (b) don’t know they need it, and (c) don't know where to get it.

Another given of marketing is recognizing people are fickle and resistant to change. Generally speaking, give people a good reason to switch brands and they will. Don't give them a good reason and they won't. In my view, the lack of understanding of these points resulted in the first big mistake the Arizona Democratic Party made in this election: they thought they knew their customer, they didn't give them reasons to switch brands and they didn't market to enough of the base.

The state's 2008 strategy was to target selected districts where the voter registration numbers are "competitive" or races that had in the recent past "been close." If you go back to previous elections, you’ll see the effects of this "targeted coordinated campaign." It has a questionable track record here in Arizona and at best should have received much more serious scrutiny before being the adopted strategy of choice for 2008. Consider these points:

1. In 2000, the AZ Senate was balanced 15-15 and the House had a Republican majority of 36-24.


2. In 2002 using the targeted strategy, (remember, this was after 9/11/01 and redistricting), Democrats got pounded: Senate Republicans took control 17-13, and the House went 38-19 Republican. Even picking up the Governorship by less than 1%, Democrats lost a net of seven seats.


3. In 2004, in another year where Democrats were supposed to take the White House, Democrats lost one seat in the AZ Senate (R's 18, D's 12) and Republicans increased their lead in the House 39-21.


4. In 2006, in a year the Maricopa County Democratic Party under Judy Kennedy decided to help every legislative candidate in the County, Democrats picked up six seats in the House (R's 33, D's 27) and one in the Senate (17-13).


5. In 2008, going back to a targeted strategy without any assistance from the County partiers and during a year of "Change" and expectation of Arizona Democrats to pick up four seats in the House to take the majority, Democrats lost two seats (35-25) in the House and lost one in the Senate (18-12), for a net loss of three seats.

Compare this now to the 50-state strategy instituted in 2005 by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean for the 2006 election cycle. The notion of competing in all 50 states “at all levels” was roundly criticized by many Democratic Party leaders as “a waste of resources,” “wishful thinking” and even “Rumsfeldian.”

Between the 1994 and 2006 Congressional elections, Democrats were in the minority. In the 2006 election, Congressional Democrats picked up 31 seats, giving them a 233-202 majority. In 2008 --the second election where all states were targeted-- Democrats picked up an additional 21 House seats, increasing their majority to 257 to 178 and adding seven seats in the Senate for a 59-41 majority (including Al Franken), nearly a filibuster-proof majority.

There are other factors that would make a 50-state or 30-district strategy viable, including a solid message (not a discussion of topics), a solid voter registration and follow-up contact efforts, appealing candidates, and a viable media/Internet campaign. One of the largest impacts of this strategy is forcing Republicans to compete for all of their seats. That means they’re spending their money on “safe” seats, diverting volunteers from other campaigns and forced to be held accountable for their record and positions. They too have limited resources and better they spend it where they don’t want to than where they do.

A 30-district strategy also has the effect of using candidates in one race to help pull independent and other non-party-line voters over to the Democratic candidate. Not everyone votes party-line down the ballot. But we have to give them options to defect across to our side at every level. This is why having voter contacts in all areas of the state matters.

The record clearly indicates that working everywhere has a better payoff than ignoring large sections of voters. As Bob Dylan sings “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” We don’t need to question whether this strategy will work. We know that answer. We have to ask why and we deserve a straight answer to why wasn’t it utilized here in 2008. This is one mistake Democrats cannot afford to make in 2010.

Who Was Targeted in 2008?

If Democrats are going to win elections, it is of paramount importance that the Party reach out to all Democrats, not just those some consultant or staff believes live in districts worthy of the effort.

According to information presented at the Fall 2008 ADP meeting in Tucson, the ADP focused it efforts only on those legislative races in these districts:

House: 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30
Senate: 5, 10, 12, 20 and 26

That's 11 out of 30 House Districts --a possible 22 out of 60 seats (37%)-- and five out of 30 Senate races (17%). There was overlap in only four districts: 10, 12, 20 and 26.

Based on the latest Secretary of State's registration numbers, the "safe" Democratic districts (e.g., Democratic registration majority over Republicans, although not necessarily independent voters) are 2, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/

At first glance, this makes sense because, as the argument went, it is best to "protect" incumbents and bet on "good Democrats" who are in "competitive" districts or where there are "open" seats. You don't help incumbents in "safe" districts because they are; well, "safe." Here's how that played out in practical terms in the 2008 election:

Arizona House of Representatives

Democrats had House incumbents running in districts 2, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28.

There were open House seats in 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30.

A total of 48 Democrats were running in --every—legislative district in the state.

This means the ADP targeted incumbents in only four of 13 (30%) legislative districts in the state (10, 23, 24, and 26) and worked in only seven of 13 districts (53%) with open seats (9, 12, 20, 23, 25, 26 and 30), although there were Democrats running in all 30 districts across the state. The ADP did not provide any meaningful help to Democratic candidates in 19 out of 30 (63%) legislative districts.

Arizona State Senate

Democrats had Senate incumbents running in 13 districts: 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.

There were open Senate seats in five districts 1, 18, 25, 29 and 30.

Democrats were running for Senate seats in 26 districts EXCEPT 8, 19, 21 and 22, which means that the Arizona Democratic Party gave little or no support to 21 Democrats running for the Arizona State Senate, leaving these candidates to largely fend for themselves.

Again, this all sounds reasonable: you let those in “safe” districts fend for themselves; you target those districts where the voter registration numbers are distinctly or leaning towards the Democrats; and you ignore the rest because, as was said too many times “they don’t have a chance.” After all, why spend resources in places you can’t win? There are several problems with that thinking and the dominant problems are these:

• You lose contact with the voters you need up or down-ticket


• You fail to develop the name recognition those candidates who do not win will need if they choose to run at a future date.


• It’s dangerous to presume all other-party incumbents will win because they don’t (and won't if we do it right).

Impact of Targeting on Registered Voters

Voter registration numbers for non-targeted districts show painfully well how the selective targeting strategy is a bad idea. The registration figures provided by the Arizona Secretary of State shows 615,000 registered and active Democrats reside in non-targeted districts. That’s over 60% of all registered and active Democrats registered to vote in Arizona. Over half of these voters (337,045) live in Maricopa County, meaning nearly two-thirds of Maricopa County Democrats did not live in targeted districts.

This doesn’t take into account the over 1.1 million independent and Republican voters who live in non-targeted districts. All told, 1.7 million registered voters live in non-targeted districts in Arizona. Through the state party’s strategy, these voters were largely spared any contact from any Democratic candidate—1.7 MILLION voters. How can that be considered a wise decision, especially in light of previous elections have been decided by 3% or less?


Source: Arizona Secretary of State

How is it possible to capture a majority of the seats in the legislature when the party doesn’t even communicate with the majority of its own voters? How can it win a majority if it doesn’t reach out to at least half of all voters? If we make no attempt to talk to these voters, then who will? The answer is: the Republicans.

As a practical example, Maricopa County Attorney candidate Tim Nelson needed 43,323 votes (half the win margin plus one) to defeat Andy Thomas. Could those votes have been found in the 337,045 Democrats who lived in non-targeted districts in Maricopa County that didn’t get a mailer, didn’t get a phone call or didn’t get a flyer?

Democrat Sam George needed 1,177 votes (half the win margin plus one) to win a seat and a Democratic majority on the Arizona Corporation Commission. Granted his campaign had other problems, but could those votes not have been found in the 615,000 Democrats who lived in non-targeted districts across Arizona?

The answer is “Yes,” which is supported by the marketing point that no one will buy your product if they don’t know it exists. You wouldn’t try to make something the most sought-after brand in Arizona if you deliberately choose to ignore two-thirds of consumers over the age of 18, but that’s exactly what happened.

Some will argue there’s a difference between marketing a product and marketing a candidate. If that’s true, then explain the “solar team’s” win. Sam George, Paul Newman and Sandra Kennedy understood the marketing aspects of a campaign. State party staff criticized the team’s strategy as a “waste of money” and gave it little chance of success. What they missed was the focus of getting the candidate’s message and names out to as wide an audience as possible would be what gets them elected.

Issues Do Not A “Message” Make

The message the “Solar Team” gave voters was simple and direct and it resonated. It pointed out that the Republicans who controlled the Commission were obstructing solar and renewable energy development and electing the “team” would ensure that Arizona becomes a focal point of solar and renewable energy development and generation. They said: “Elect Republicans in and you’ll never get solar energy in Arizona that saves the environment and reduces your electric bill or our national dependence on foreign oil.” It gave voters a reason to vote for the Democrats and it worked.

Compare that message with the message from our legislative candidates: we need better schools, better healthcare and jobs. These are important and no one will question their importance, but from a marketing standpoint, they weren’t packaged into a message that would resonate with voters as clearly as the “solar teams” message did. They didn’t give the voters a reason to vote out incumbent Republicans because the Republicans too were saying we need better schools, better healthcare and jobs, they just packaged in with the wrapper of higher taxes if Democrats were elected and threw in the divisional issues of gay marriage and immigration to heat up emotions.

After the 2004 presidential loss of John Kerry, former Clinton strategist Paul Begala recalls asking a Kerry advisor to explain the campaign’s message; the reply was JHOS – Jobs, Health, Oil, Security. “That’s not a message,” says Begala, “when Bush’s message is ‘I will protect you from those who will murder you and [Kerry won’t]’ – and we’re saying JHOS? C’mon.”

The comparative Republican message in Arizona in 2008 was this: “We will lower school costs by putting more kids in taxpayer funded charter schools because they can operate more cheaply. We will decrease health costs by getting more people in health savings accounts and kicking out ‘illegals’ that drive up costs. We will stimulate job growth by cutting business taxes, and as a bonus we’ll also keep you safe from those ‘illegals’ who are robbing our stores, stealing your jobs and killing our cops.”

It doesn’t matter that these Republican strategies are failures or that their “facts” are wrong. It doesn’t matter the Democrats may have better solutions. Anyone who has read Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” or Drew Weston’s “The Political Brain” understands why the Republican message resonated and the Democratic one did not: it did not appeal to people’s emotions. We must develop messages that touch people’s emotions in addition to their intellect.

But there’s more to it than that. E.J. Dionne wrote in his book “Why Americans Hate Politics” about the difference between policy issues and policy problems. He writes issues are what politicians use to divide the voters and problems are tangible things that can be solved by crafting policy. This means messages have to have a coherent theme and an emotional appeal as Westin says, but they also have to be specific policy proposals that address real problems people identify with. If they are going to be rational appeals, then they have to be straightforward solutions fixing concrete problems.

It’s not the topics or the way Democrats would deal with each of those issues that are the problem. It has nothing to do with our solutions. Our “message” simply was not packaged in a manner that motivated voters to reject incumbents and elect Democrats. There was no concerted effort to focus on the many and significant Republican failures. Look at Obama’s message of hope and change and how electing him will make our lives better and our country safer and put an end to the two wars we’re fighting. He took great pains to paint Republicans with a very broad brush of policy and programmatic failure. We simply had no comparable message in Arizona.

This problem can be traced in part to relying too heavily on polls to tell us what people think. Polls are snapshots in time and survey responses are based on how the questions are worded. Likert scaled responses, however, do not provide sufficient insights into the emotions or concerns people have around a given issue nor do they necessarily take into account external information on things such as external trends or events, so these external influences wind up being ignored, to our detriment.

As a result, we wind up “understanding” issues on a one-to-five scale and not by listening to what people are saying in conversation. This has the unfortunate impact of our ignoring issues that “aren’t Democratic issues” even though the Republicans may talk about them all the time. Whenever that happens we lose those arguments by default. Over time, these defaulted issues begin to add up and that’s when Republicans and pundits say Democrats have no message and no solutions. This self-inflicted wound can and must be avoided whenever possible.

Immigration is a prime example of this problem. It was made very clear that no legislative candidate was to talk about immigration unless asked. If they were asked, they then were told to give very generic answers about securing the border. Nearly every Republican candidate for state, county or local public office in Arizona spoke about immigration from a crime, economic and jobs perspective. Few Democrats were willing to do the same. The state’s party directive effectively opened the door for Republicans to say Democrats are soft on crime and for “open borders.” The only proof they needed was that Democrats weren’t talking about it. Remember Paul Begala’s and Weston’s comments and Maslow Hierarchy?

Another example of this was the 2006 election of Jackie Thrasher to the House and her defeat in 2008. In 2006, Jackie went to meeting after meeting and said to people “If the Republicans are so good at education, why are we ranked 49th? If they’re so good with tax policy and controlling revenues, then why have we had so many deficits?” She won, nearly beating the incumbent House Speaker, Jim Weiers. Jump forward to 2008. Jackie was took a defensive approach, focusing on her record and not the continued failures of the Republican leadership and their responsibility for the budget deficit. Her opponent, on the other hand, talked a message of fear of government, fear of outsiders and fear of fiscal and social irresponsibility if Democrats took control of the House. He won.

The bottom line is we simply failed to learn from previous elections and we repeated the same message mistakes, which is mistaking topics and positions for a message. They’re not the same and we cannot afford to make those mistakes again.

A Plan for Action and Improvement

The election in 2010 is significant in many ways. First, all of the major state offices are up that year, including Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Secretary of State and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Next, whomever controls the legislature in 2010 will have significant influence how legislative district are redrawn. Finally, actions by the all-Republican state leadership could allow us to present a case of a right-wing gone out of control and an effective Obama administration could give voters another opportunity to take a closer look at Arizona Democrats. These opportunities mean the party must take a hard look at the strategies and the people who lead it to 2008’s disappointments and take corrective measures.

While the aforementioned strategic problems contributed to our losses, organizational problems compounded already strained relations between the state party, county party and campaign staff. Complaints about state party staff range from indifference to rudeness to arrogance when dealing with candidates and volunteers. Here are a few of the more common complaints:

• New candidates or those deemed “with no chance” were ignored by the state party at exactly the time they should have been given help.


• Some campaigns were unable to raise money and prove “viability” because state party staff openly discouraged donors from contributing to those campaigns at meetings and in the media.


• Requests to the state party by candidates with limited resources to participate in robocalls or literature walks were denied because they did not “pay to play.”


• Candidates who shared a public dais with party leaders or Democratic elected officials where ignored in public comments or acknowledgements.


• Slate pieces were discarded from walks because senior state party staff believed handing them out potentially hurt other Democratic candidates.


• Promised organized walks were canceled hours before they were scheduled to begin.


• County party organizations were told to “butt-out” of providing assistance to legislative candidates.


• Polling data was not shared among all campaigns, only those who “paid to play.”


• Incumbent elected Democrats shied away from endorsing other Democrats in a timely manner or even at all, often at the direction of the state party staff.


• A request by one candidate to hold a press conference at party HQ to defend himself from Republican smear was denied simply because of whom he was.


• A $250,000 donation was made to the state party with hope that some of it would trickle down to county offices and races. That never occurred.
  

No Democrat who chooses to run for public office at any level in the state of Arizona deserves to have their viability questioned, access to data, access to technical assistance and training, access to technology or access to expertise blocked by anyone working for the state Democratic party. These candidates make up the Democratic farm team and only the voters should decide whether they’re suitable for office or not. Clearly exceptions may have to be made, but arbitrary selection based upon staff opinions, the opinions of consultants, or personality conflicts is unprofessional, unproductive and unacceptable. State party staff cannot be in the business of individually picking “winners” or “losers.” Those who acted in such a manner should be replaced with professionals who treat candidates and county officers and volunteers with respect and courtesy. Refusing to help any candidate or county office in legitimate and appropriate ways should be grounds for termination at all levels.

One of the reasons many believe that Republicans are better at winning elections is they stick together no matter what. Their PCs are trained and motivated and have electronic tools to help them communicate with voters in their districts and precincts. They are expected to contact new residents and the party provides them the necessary data to do so. Candidates get party assistance and support regardless of their perceived chances of victory and they compete everywhere. This capability and this mentality must become part of the Arizona Democratic Party.

1. A priority must be to strengthen all County Party organizations, both urban and rural and create capacities within each to provide direct assistance to candidates, legislative districts, precinct committeepersons and clubs as needed. Training, technology, strategy assistance, media and public relations expertise should all be part of these efforts as well as a more deliberate cash investment to support staff, infrastructure and campaigns.


2. A priority must be the development and investment in the next cadre of Democratic candidates for public office. To do this, beginning at the county level, potential candidates should be identified, contacted and trained well in advance of the start of the general election cycle. Democrats can no longer afford to wait until the last possible moment to identify or train new candidates. There is sufficient knowledge of Arizona elections and campaigns to well prepare our candidates. This must be an on-going process.


3. No candidate is worth zero investment. Candidates must be guaranteed the state and county party will be there to support them with resources, endorsements, meetings with elected Democrats, access to polling data and access to the party’s databases in ways that allows them to properly and effectively plan and finance their campaigns. The attitude must be “how can we help” rather than “how can you help us.”


4. The only goal of the Arizona State Democratic Party can be the election of as many Democrats to public office as possible. While federal and high-level state elections are important, so are county and local elections. It is this base of elected officials that we draw from for future elections and we cannot expect to become a majority party again if we concentrate only on those elections where there are numerically favorable registration numbers of Democrats versus Republicans. We must pursue independent voters and those in largely Democratic or independent districts.


5. Dr. Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy has clearly shown in the last two election cycles that competing everywhere and using the Internet intelligently is the secret to Democratic success. It is unfortunate that strategy was not duplicated in Arizona and we should have known better. Significant managerial, strategic and policy mistakes were made and those who purposefully chose to ignore the concerns and suggestions of those within the party who saw the problem for what it was and ignored it should be replaced with professionals who have the capacity to listen and take council.

We can no longer afford to base our election strategies simply on the ways we’ve done it before, or based on the recommendations of consultants. There is a great amount of wisdom in our county and local organizations, our clubs and in our partners and we need to be open to new and different ways of doing things. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The targeted strategy, the poor treatment of candidates and of county and local party offices has failed us time and time again and it cannot be repeated.

It is time for a change in the Arizona Democratic Party. It is time to build a functional organization that listens, is creative, and is responsive and reaches out to all of voters all of the time. Only with these and other changes can Arizona Democrats become the majority party we know it can be.

That is why I am a candidate for Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party. I ask for your support and your vote.