An attitude re-calibration and a re-commitment.

I received an excellent email from my sister this week. It was one of those great correspondences that talk about real things, and not just the superficial issues of the day. It was also an insightful challenge.

I'll excerpt a bit here (having received her permission to reproduce it). She referenced my following comment about Senator Huppenthal, which appeared in an earlier post on Huppenthal's use of the Intel logo in his campaign signs:

"Huppenthal here blames the potential copyright infringement on his "sign guy". Used to, Republicans were in favor of taking "personal responsibility." But I guess a lot has changed since the good old days."

My sister then makes the following observation:

OK...your comment about Republicans being in favor of taking personal responsibility is true. It's the next sentence that I have issue with. Have you ever thought that maybe...just maybe it's Huppenthal that's changed since the 'good old days' and not Republicans? True Republicans (of which I am one) still believe AND ACT on the taking personal responsiblity adage. Please don't lump all Republicans into the same group as your Mr. Huppenthal. From what I've read about him, he's one of the Republicans I wouldn't be proud of. He sounds as though he's more the "slimy ol' politician" and you're right to blog against his type. They're the ones that give politics a bad name. Just don't make it a Republican / Democrat / Indie thing. That's what everybody else is doing and you're much too intelligent to do that. ...I just think it would be better to stay as far away from partisanship as possible.

My sister is right. It's not all Republicans. In fact, I have many very dear friends and loved ones who are Republicans (most of my immediate family). And some Republican views are, I believe, sound and meritworthy.

And as I read her email and have considered it over the past few days, I realize she's right, too, that I've sometimes acted on this blog as a highly charged partisan, which is not constructive at all.

Her email, and my realization, comes at a time in my own personal devotions with God that I have been convicted of the need to be very vigilant about not becoming what I dislike. Namely, someone who uses politics to divide others, rather than bring them together.

I should emphasize that because it means so much to me: it is an extremely strong personal value - and source of edification - to serve others by helping them achieve consensus and thereby solve problems and promote unity. So it pains me to think that I may not be living up to that standard of behavior.

In my vocal objection to the hypocrisy and dissembling of JD Hayworth, for example, I have come very close to being a graceless person. Let there be no mistake: I think JD Hayworth is worse than incompetent as a Representative. His rhetoric is gauged, it seems, to tear down and destroy unity in our society. But that certainly does not justify my being graceless toward him.

It is the struggle - a constant struggle - of a sincere and mature servant of others to not fall into the trap of allowing those things you are contending with in this world to begin to define you. As I see the corruption, the hypocrisy and the divisive partisanship in politics today and strive to stand against it, it becomes all too easy to become debased by wallowing in the filth. And, in so doing, one risks endangering the calling which (in my personal faith) I believe urges us to noble and righteous behavior.

My personal faith tells me that I should love JD Hayworth and John Huppenthal and Tom DeLay and all the other politicians who have disappointed me. My faith also tells me that this love and forgiveness is an act of the will, not some transient emotion.

But I have been convicted in my spirit that, in my passion to illuminate those things that frustrate me about such politicians, I have not been always acting with love toward them. And so, I need to recalibrate my attitude to one of godliness.

As we are only a week before the elections, I make this commitment, then:

I make a re-commitment to strive to see these politicians as erring brothers, whom I love. I will continue to point out those errors in judgment that they make, as I perceive them. I will continue to campaign against them, and will be happy when and if they are replaced in their positions of leadership by others I believe better suited to the role. But I will strive to retain a degree of humility about it all. And I will try to keep my focus centered on those people and peccadilloes that merit it, rather than casting the net of blame farther than it's merited.

You know, taking a mature, judicious, well-considered position on an issue is something that I've always valued very highly. I work very hard to try to see an issue from various sides and understand the arguments that opposing views propose. In my professional and personal life, I tend to thrive as a mediator because of a natural tendency to empathy, probing consideration and impartiality. But I admit I've not been very impartial, lately. So I welcome any accountability from any of my readers on this point.

Thanks for "listening" to this. Have a Happy Hallowe'en, all.

Update: In a remarkable coincidence, I just ran across this post, freshly made, that seemed remarkably relevant to part of my comments above. It would appear that there are many of us struggling to find a proper balance as we move forward in the wake of our disillusionment with the Republican Party.

Update 2: Rasmussen Reports notes that this is part of a real trend.

In the final full month before Election 2006, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has fallen to its lowest level since we began reporting this measure of partisan trends in January 2004. As a result, Democrats have their biggest net advantage of the past two campaign cycles.

In October, just 31.5% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s a startling decline of nearly six percentage points from 37.2% two years ago. It’s also down nearly a full point from last month.

That means that about ONE-SIXTH of the Republicans in our country have left the party in the past two years. It would seem that millions of others are struggling with the question of partisan politics and how it relates to their self identity.

More trash robocalls on Hayworth's behalf.

I've not blogged it every time it's happened, but it seems like just about every other day, I've received another trash-talking robocall supporting JD Hayworth. Of course, they don't come right out and say they support Hayworth, because that would be illegal. They are required to not "support" any particular candidate.

So they do the next best thing. They talk trash about Hayworth's opponent, Harry Mitchell.

The latest two came this evening. The first was another RNCC call slamming Harry using blatantly misleading half-truths to distort Mitchell's record. The second came tonight from "Americans for Job Security" which did the same thing.

I'll share a little bit about this latter one, because it takes the trash-talking robocall and it goes one more step further into the ugly. Namely, it starts out with a blatant lie by saying "I hope you got the information I sent you." And then it gets worse, as they spread blatant falsehood and misleading half-truths about a candidate.

I've gotten other robocalls with this kind of hook, before. "I'm responding to your inquiry" is a common one. Instead of just cold calling you, they figure that if they lie and say they're "responding" to your inquiry, or that they're "following up" on information they sent, then it will take some of the sting off of the fact that, basically, they're strangers interrupting your dinner hour to lie even MORE to you about a candidate they oppose.

I hate that. I think few things incense me more than being lied to. Particularly by people who then hypocritically ascribe to themselves some kind of moral high ground.

In fact, I hate it so much that I always make it a point to call back those kinds of people and call them on their lies. So it was that, when this call listed a phone number (long distance, of course) I called it, straightaway.

The number, for your information, is 703-535-3112. I got voice-mail, of course.

Basically, Americans for Job Security (or AJS) is a pro-Republican PAC that makes a habit of waging misleading attacks on Democratic candidates in order to get their favored candidates (all Republican) elected. They are useful attack dogs for the GOP especially in races where the Republican - despite being in a gerrymandered district to favor them - is nevertheless in jeopardy of losing (as is JD Hayworth) by dint of looming scandal, gross incompetence, or both.

The President of this Virginia-based PAC is Michael Dubke. Dubke used to run the right-wing Ripon Society, which bills itself as "The Conscience of the Republican Party". The Ripon Society also has an "Education Fund", headed by a lobbyist whose clients have included, among others, Exxon Oil.

The AJS is pretty well known among attack-PACs. According Public Citizen's "StealthPACs" report:

AJS has stated to the IRS that its purpose is "educating the public on economic issues with a pro-market, pro-paycheck message."2 The group, in reality, does not appear tied to any unifying ideological mission other than helping the electoral pursuits of favored candidates, who have exclusively been Republicans throughout the organization's history.

AJS's ads in 2002, for instance, attacked Democratic candidates for such disparate offenses as breaking a promise not to run for a third term, taking money from special interests, being soft on crime, being anti-senior citizen, getting “too comfortable in Washington," and voting against converting Nevada’s Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste storage site. AJS praised Republican candidates for obtaining aid for ranchers, helping to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and championing legislation to remove disruptive kids from classrooms.3

AJS typically spends nearly all of its budget on political commercials, which the group terms "grassroots lobbying," and most of those commercials are broadcast during the political campaign season.4 In 2002, 100 percent of the group's 2,172 television commercials were aired within the two months leading up to Election Day.5 Reviewers at the Wisconsin Advertising Project, the foremost academic research program assessing the political content of television ads, concluded that 100 percent of AJS's 2000 and 2002 television ads consisted of electioneering communications, not issue advocacy.6 7

AJS's roster of officers and consultants is a team of Republican Party alumni. One consultant served as director of political affairs for President George H.W. Bush and as national field director for his 1992 campaign. The group's president worked on George H.W. Bush's 1992 campaign, and the group's lawyer, Benjamin Ginsberg, has served as national counsel to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004, the Republican National Committee and a multitude of Republican candidates and organizations.8

Since early revelations that AJS was seeded with $1 million each from the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Insurance Association, the group has jealously guarded its list of funders.9 10 11 The National Journal reported in December 2003 that about 500 corporations and individuals ante up contributions "as high as $100,000" to AJS.12

AJS claimed zero political expenditures in its filings with the IRS that covered calendar years 2000 to 2002.13 In effect, the group claimed that none of its advocacy communications were intended to influence the outcomes of elections.14 But if the IRS were to agree with the findings of the academic reviewers at the Wisconsin Advertising Project that 100 percent of AJS's commercials have been intended to influence the outcomes of elections, as opposed to issue ads, AJS would potentially be in violation of the terms of its 501(c) status. Electioneering activities may not constitute a 501(c) group's primary purpose.15 If AJS were classified as a 527 organization, the status reserved for political organizations, the group would be required to disclose its sources of funding.

So there you have it. A trash-talking robocall from a Stealth PAC run by right-wingers, trading on their tax-exempt status (potentially illegally) to run misleading attack ads against Democratic candidates, including Harry Mitchell.

AJS is also backed by, among others, Big Pharma and Insurance contributors. So it's not surprising they'd be doing hit-pieces on Hayworth's opponent, given how much a blessing Hayworth has been for them.

Just something else to keep in mind when considering those trash-talking robocalls slamming Harry Mitchell.

Please donate to, and vote for, the better man: Harry Mitchell for US Congress.

News and Views roundup - October 31, 2006.

Happy Hallowe'en, all!

Here's a collection of eight recent articles and other tidbits related to public policy and politics in Chandler, AZ and surrounding areas.

1. Politics1 predicts Harry Mitchell will beat Hayworth.

2. The Onion has a satirical article about the Republicans desperately throwing all of their money behind Hayworth to save his now seriously endangered seat.

3. The Cook Political Report changes the Mitchell-Hayworth race from "Leans Republican" to "Toss-Up". (See Oct. 30 entry).

4. EV Trib has an excellent article on Harry Mitchell: "Mitchell mild on the surface".

5. EV Trib has another article on the LD20 candidates, Donna Gratehouse and John Huppenthal.

6. The Phoenix Business Journal notes the Mitchell-Hayworth race is a toss-up, and that Giffords (CD-8) and Gov. Napolitano are cruising to election.

7. Speaking of the feral catfights that characterize politics, here's an article on the feral cat problem in Chandler.

8. And on that note, an article about the recent Chandler City Hall meeting at which several activists protested the new Covance construction.

Canvassing with Mitchell, Gordon, Gratehouse, Stanton, Mead and others!

Public servants support each other on a bright Saturday in Ahwatukee.

(l-r: Former State Senator Slade Mead, Phoenix City Councilman Greg Stanton, candidate for US Congress Harry Mitchell, candidate for AZ Senate Donna Gratehouse and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. Photo by Geo.)

This morning I passed a very enjoyable time in Ahwatukee with candidate Donna Gratehouse and a number of other really fine folks. The day was dedicated to canvassing for Harry Mitchell, who's running for US Congress for AZ-5, as well as for Donna Gratehouse, running for State Senate in LD-20.

We kicked off the walk at the Sun Ray Park, with an appearance by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon who came out to walk with Harry Mitchell and the rest of us. In addition to the Mayor, we also had Phoenix Councilman Greg Stanton and former State Senator Slade Mead in attendance.

Before the walk got started, we were chatting there in the park and Harry introduced me to his wife Marianne. A charming lady, Mrs. Mitchell and a few of us discussed the impact of campaigning on their family. She noted that they had campaigned many, many times before. But, she said, it was nothing like this time. The intensity of this race far exceeded their earlier experiences.

It's easy to see why, too, with all of the money being poured into this campaign and the negative ads from Mitchell's opponent. The sheer amount of territory to cover, the media, the number of volunteers. It's a huge undertaking. And it sounded to me like the Mitchells were doing well and had it under control, though, a testimony to the strength of their convictions, the resilience of their family and their experience in dealing with the stresses of campaigning. Harry is very fortunate to be so blessed to have that kind of support.

When we were ready, Phoenix Mayor Gordon then shared shared a few words about the importance of the race and his endorsement of Harry Mitchell. He expressed his thanks for the 30 or so volunteers that had given their Saturday morning to canvass in Ahwatukee. Larger groups were simultaneously meeting in Tempe and Scottsdale to similarly get out the vote for Harry. The Mayor also introduced Councilman Stanton and Slade Mead, who both have been instrumental in serving our community.

Mayor Gordon inroduced Harry, making reference to the recent AZ Republic's endorsement of Harry. Harry similarly expressed his thanks to the volunteers. He noted how close the polls were and how close the race was expected to be, but encouraged us in that the momentum appeared to be on our side. He was very energetic as he described the dynamics of the race and I think he has good reason to be optimistic.

Harry then introduced Donna Gratehouse, who was able to speak about the need for a state legislature dedicated to constructive governance, instead of undermining the Governor with divisive partisanship.

One cannot help but be impressed by the dedication and sincerity of these public servants. Each of them has an obvious passion and drive for helping make our community better and it's a privilege to be able to support them in their effort to do so.

Channel 12 News was also on hand and interviewed Mayor Gordon afterwards. The crowd then split up in twos and threes to go walk various precincts. Donna Gratehouse, another volunteer and I teamed up to visit Thunderhill A precinct, near 32nd Street and Ray.

As the three of us were among the last to head out to canvass, we were available for the 12 News team to interview, once they finished interviewing Mayor Gordon. They interviewed Donna first and - I'll tell you - she was outstanding. Very polished, professional and just generally on-point. This woman is ready for the State Senate!

The reporters then interviewed me, asking how I felt about Governor Napolitano. It was the first time I think I've ever been interviewed on television. I don't think it was very polished or well spoken. I haven't prepared comments for such an eventuality - but I told the truth and spoke from the heart. It didn't last more than a few minutes, but I was glad to have the opportunity to share how I felt. They even asked about my blog!

To be honest, it was a little surreal.

I think I was just more stunned that, here I was, a volunteer, and in the past few weeks I've met the Governor of Arizona, the Mayor of Phoenix, a Phoenix Councilman (twice), various candidates for office (including our soon-to-be Congressman Mitchell and State Senator Gratehouse, I hope) and lots of wonderful volunteers and political activists who are, basically, just passionate about making their community, state and country a better place.

I've had a letter published in the local paper and been interviewed by newspaper reporters and for television news. It all seems a little...new...for someone like me who - while I've been involved in community development of one kind or another for eight years - generally hasn't spent much time in the political spotlight and does most of his political expression here on this blog.

But I have to say, anyone that says they don't have access to the political process is just wrong. Get out, invest a little time, energy and shoe leather and it's amazing the kind of involvement and engagement that can result. It's great for boosting your faith in participative democracy.

By the way, those are some beautiful homes you folks have over there in Thunderhill A precinct. Pretty environment, too, with the little hills and draws. Everyone we met today was extra nice and accessible. On such a beautiful day, meeting such nice people and working with such a pleasant and fun candidate and staff, it makes it a particular pleasure to do canvassing.

I'm not sure I'll be watching the news tonight, but if anyone happens to see me, drop me a line and let me know what you thought. :)



The Mitchells and me.

News update for our community - Oct 27

Three articles worth your attention related to public policy, politics and community development in our part of Arizona:

1. Our faith in developer was misplaced

The deadlines have come and gone on Elevation Chandler, and the only activity is the dismantling of scaffolding. We can't say we're surprised, but it is disappointing to see such a highly touted project fall through.

2. New Foothills CofC chief right choice to follow McComish

When we heard a while back that state Rep. John McComish, R-District 20, would be resigning his post as president of the Ahwatukee Foothills Chamber of Commerce, we wondered who could possibly fill his shoes. For those with the same concerns, you can relax.

Last week, the chamber announced that Linda Pastori will be replacing McComish when he leaves Jan. 1.

3. Pass school bond and keep education top priority

The Chandler Republic recommends approval of the bond issue on Nov. 7.

Support Harry Mitchell now through ActBlue!

Thanks to the initiatve of bloggers at Wactivist.com (Mr. T), RCubed (Tedski) and LoftyDonkey.com (Lofty Donkey), we have a new ActBlue page dedicated to Arizona congressional candidates!

I'm extremely happy to add the Precinct 134 Blog's hearty endorsement of Harry Mitchell and join my fellow bloggers to sponsor Harry Mitchell for US Congress. This follows on the AZ Republic's endorsement today of Harry, as well.

Readers of this blog will know how highly I think of Harry Mitchell. His reputation for integrity and bipartisan results in public service to our community spans three decades. And given that the House of Representatives will almost certainly be shifting to Democratic control in the coming election, it is all the more important to have an accomplished, well-respected member of the Majority party in Congress representing us back here in CD-5.

As it says on our ActBlue page:

Together, we have done so much. The Arizona blogosphere convinced Harry Mitchell to run for congress, broke the story about the Renzi land-swap investigation, first reported on Don Goldwater’s plan to lock up illegals and force them to build a wall, and survived the CD8 Primary. Now – today – we need to unite and do one final financial push for our Federal Candidates.

This Friday is the last big day to donate. While we could (and should) keep giving after today, this is the weekend where campaigns make their final plans for the last 10 days of the campaign. Give today to make sure they have what they need.

We thought we could do it in 2004 but came up short, now in 2006 talking about TURNING AZ BLUE is more than just rhetoric. Let’s put these keyboards to some use – and get much needed GOTV money to our great Democratic Candidates!!! Donate today and get your friends to do the same!!

It has been an honor to have donated to and volunteered for Harry Mitchell's campaign. Rarely does one have the privilege of supporting someone so perfect for the job of representing the community. As I've canvassed neighborhoods, handed out literature, registered new voters and worked phone banking for Harry, I've been able to connect with many neighbors in our community who are desperate for a change in Arizona and in Washington D.C.

Harry is exactly what we need! Again, from the ActBlue write-up on Harry:

Few candidates have as much experience serving the people of Arizona as Harry Mitchell. After graduating from ASU, Harry became a public school teacher in Tempe. Colleagues of his (tired of his constant griping about the need for improved leadership in Tempe) convinced Mitchell to run for the city council. He was elected and went on to become Tempe’s most popular and effective mayor. Serving for 16 years (most of those while still teaching at Tempe High), Harry oversaw the revitalization of Mill Avenue, a difficult task that required hard work, creativity, and an ability to build consensus across party lines, and between residents and businesses.

After 16 years as Mayor, Harry took his hard work and dedication to the State Senate. Serving the people of Tempe, Scottsdale, and Ahwatukee for 8 years, Harry used his down to earth style of politics to advocate for Arizona’s students, fight to create jobs in Arizona, and hold a constantly out of touch Republican Legislature in check.

Harry is EXACTLY what the voters of CD5 need in congress. Help Send J.D. Hayworth home – and Harry to DC! Donate today!

Harry Mitchell is supported by many respected members of our community across the political spectrum - Republican, Independent and Democrat - for his principled stand, his mainstream values and his integrity. And in my interactions with Harry, I've been able to quiz him on key issues important to me personally. His positions are reasonable, smart and smack-dab in the mainstream and he's a man who has proven he can get results.

I endorse Harry Mitchell without reservation and urge my readers to visit our new ActBlue page and donate, volunteer and vote for Harry Mitchell for US Congress.

AZ Republic endorses Harry Mitchell over "bombastic bully" Hayworth

Many of us have been saying it for a long time: that JD Hayworth is a bombastic, divisive demagogue whose behavior actively destroys comity, consensus and progress. Meanwhile, his opponent in Arizona's CD-5 race, Harry Mitchell, is a man of sterling reputation with over 30 years of demonstrated public service.

Finally, it's become so obvious that even AZ Republic has come out and stated it clearly. In an article today entitled "Mitchell over the bully", they have resoundingly endorsed Harry Mitchell for Congress.

And in the same article, they pull no punches in telling it like it is where JD Hayworth is concerned. You have to read their endorsement. Some key passages, refreshing in their candor, express why they don't like Hayworth:

The biggest problem in Congress is extreme partisanship, and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., is among Capitol Hill's worst offenders.

...It is high time to hit this matter squarely: J. D. Hayworth is a bully. He may not yet have reached the point where you can't take him anywhere, but you certainly can't take him to a calm, civil discussion.

...It isn't The Republic that has changed since 1994, when Hayworth was first elected to Congress. It's Hayworth. He no longer reflects the 5th Congressional District, which, while solidly Republican, has a progressive and moderate complexion.

...During this past term, Hayworth has devolved from a windy and sometimes cartoonish politician into an angry demagogue who has shamelessly and divisively exploited the immigration issue, arguably the No. 1 concern of Arizonans.

...It is Hayworth's increasingly combative demeanor and high-octane partisanship that is more troubling.

Hayworth has been in Washington for more than a decade and by now should have demonstrated some growth in office.

,,,The 5th District needs a representative who is eager to work with others, not an unrepentant partisan.

Hayworth's bombastic rhetoric and obnoxious behavior have gotten him into his toughest political fight yet.

...The 5th Congressional District needs a bridge-builder, not a bomb-thrower.

The AZ Republic endorses Harry Mitchell with the following comments:

Mitchell, a Democrat, has served this community for more than three decades, as a city councilman and long-time mayor of Tempe and most recently as state senator. He is a consensus-builder, respected by community leaders and supported by high-profile Republicans in this race.

...For his part, Mitchell may not be the political saint idolized by some of his loyal boosters. Nobody is that perfect. Still, it's hard not to be impressed by his public-service resume. He was Tempe mayor from 1978 to 1994 (and a council member for eight years before that). He oversaw the revitalization of Mill Avenue, which had become somewhat seedy by the 1970s.

Mitchell was elected to the Arizona Senate in 1998 and rose to the leadership rank of assistant minority leader. He offers a better future.

If elected, we hope Mitchell flashes back to his days as mayor, when he had to constantly work with competing interests to get results. He will need those skills in Washington where his constituents will demand that he reach across the aisle with other centrists.

The 5th Congressional District needs a bridge-builder, not a bomb-thrower.

The Republic recommends the election of Harry Mitchell.

Finally, we have one of the big, mainstream media sources - interestingly one that has generally supported Republicans in the past - making observations about Hayworth's destructive behavior that many of us have all been saying for some time: that he's an obstructive bombastic, divisive bully.

And the AZ Republic recognizes the qualities of Harry Mitchell, whose record of public service demonstrates integrity, civility and collaboration across the political spectrum to get things done.

It's particularly key for Arizonans in CD-5 to note something very important: it appears almost certain, from every estimation, that Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives in November.

When that happens, would voters prefer to be represented by a divisive windbag that has rhetorically painted himself into a partisan corner of the minority party? Or would they prefer to be represented by a well-respected member of the Majority party, who has a reputation of integrity and bipartisan collaboration?

The decision is easy for me, and evidently pretty clear to the AZ Republic, too. Recent polls show the two candidates are statistically tied, so Harry needs your support. Please vote for Harry Mitchell for US Congress.


Update: Some other blogs are weighing in on the AZ Republic's endorsement of Harry Mitchell as well:

1. Random Musings.
2. AZCongressWatch.
3. DailyKos.
4. Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.

Napolitano, Mitchell and Gratehouse stand together.

I just got home from a gathering in Ahwatukee to launch a neighborhood walk for Democratic candidates in this year's election. Governor Janet Napolitano and candidate Harry Mitchell were preparing to walk together to canvass for each other. State Senate candidate Donna Gratehouse was also in attendance, with about 40 supporters, staff and media.

It was the first time I'd been able to meet Napolitano in person, so I was excited at the opportunity. Before I left for the event, I told my Stepdad Troy - a disabled veteran of WWII and the Korean War with Purple Hearts from both - that I was going to see the Governor.

"Is there anything you'd like me to tell her tonight?" I asked him.

"Just tell her," he said with a smile, "that I think she's doing a great job and to keep up the good work."

I promised him I'd do so, if I got the chance.

As people arrived at the house in Ahwatukee, Judy and Bill, the hosts for the evening, were arranging signs with Nick, one of Mitchell's staffers. Soon, others began arriving, including local journalists and other supporters. After a bit, an advance member of the Governor's security detail arrived to walk through the house.

Once Donna, Harry and Janet were all there, things got under way. As the Governor was perusing the literature they were to be handing out during their walk, I took the opportunity to shake her hand, introduce myself and share with her the words my Stepdad had asked me to say.

She smiled and responded "Tell him thank you very much for saying that - that's very kind."

Soon, the three candidates were able to stand together to speak briefly to the assembled crowd about the importance of this election. Harry Mitchell, candidate for US Congress and trailing by only one percentage point in the latest poll, shared why it was important to make a change in Washington DC.

Napolitano, who is whupping the tar out of her challenger Munsil by 30 or 40 points in the polls, echoed Harry's points and urged us to work hard to elect Harry.

Janet then turned to Donna Gratehouse and Donna, who is running for State Senate, spoke about how important it was to have a State Legislature that would work with the Governor and not try to undermine her.

I was pleased to see the three candidates come together like that. As far as I know, that's the first time they've come together for an event. It was a powerful moment of solidarity and unity as they support each other in the coming elections.

I'm sure that an article and pictures of the three of them will come out in the AZ Republic and the Ahwatukee News, too. I don't know if any pictures that were taken at the event have me in them, but if so, I'll post one here.

When I got home this evening, I told my Stepdad I had faithfully carried out my promise and told the Governor what he had asked me to say. He smiled and said "Yep, she's doing a good job, all right."

Update: Thanks, Bill!

What is John Huppenthal hiding from McCain and the rest of us?

It seems that Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal (R-20) has some positions he really doesn't want us to know about. And he's refused a request by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and others to come clean about them.

According to Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan voter education organization:

SENATOR JOHN HUPPENTHAL REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY KEY NATIONAL LEADERS OF BOTH MAJOR PARTIES, INCLUDING:

John McCain, Republican Senator
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

Over 100 news organizations throughout the nation also urged their candidates to supply their issue positions through the National Political Awareness Test.

Urge Senator John Huppenthal to pass the National Political Awareness Test.

Why would Senator Huppenthal REFUSE REPEATEDLY to answer this important voter education questionnaire? Why doesn't Huppenthal want Arizona voters to know where he stands on these issues?

The New York Times' blog, The Caucus has offers an explanation. They note that refusing to answer such questionnaires appears to be part of an effort by candidates...

...to hide their issues positions, and incumbents’ suggestions to refer to their voting records are “evasive” because it can be difficult to sort out positions through a web of different votes on seemingly similar bills, Ms. Kimball said. “If you’re looking for an incumbent’s response, good luck.”

After simply asking candidates if they are willing to share their views, Project Vote Smart makes them prove it. To have their “yes” answer count, candidates must respond to at least 70 percent of the categories on a questionnaire involving issues that are both of concern to the public, determined by polling, and likely to come up in during their term.

Those responses are logged, verbatim and in their entirety, on Project Vote Smart’s website as part of its Voter’s Self-Defense System, a database of information on over 30,000 candidates and elected officials.

The site gets close to 16 million hits a day around election time, Ms. Kimball said, calling it an “indication that people actually need help.”

Project Vote Smart works hard to maintain objectivity. For example, board members must bring on a member of the opposite party to join, so Senator John McCain brought on Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee for president in 1988.

John Huppenthal spends a lot of time talking about past legislation, trying to sift through bills he's voted on to try to bolster whatever case he's making at the time. But when it comes to explaining exactly where he stands on the issues most important to Arizonans, he flatly refuses to do it where everyone can see it.

From following his career and his campaign, I can tell you that Huppenthal is no moderate. On nearly any issue I can see, he takes the more extreme view. Perhaps it's because Huppenthal knows that if he actually, clearly tells everyone where he stands on some of these issues, we'll all see just how out of the mainstream he really is. So he hides.

"Oh well," you may say..."all politicians do it. Hiding their views is what they do."

First of all, we deserve better. We deserve to be told explicitly where candidates stand if they expect us to vote for them. Candidates should not be able to simply take our vote for granted just because they have a little "R" or "D" beside their name.

Secondly, not all politicians hide their positions. Not Senator McCain, who thinks Project VoteSmart is so important, he serves on its Board. And not Donna Gratehouse, who has readily participated and completely outlined her positions on the VoteSmart questionnaire. John McCain and Donna Gratehouse share those character traits: the courage of their convictions and talking straight.

No candidate is going to perfectly align with a voter's views. If you think they do, it's probably because you haven't dug deeply enough. Trying to get a perfect alignment is eventually pointless. But some candidates purposefully cultivate vagueness and doubletalk so they can't get pinned down. That way, we can THINK we agree with them, even when the candidate has positions far outside of the mainstream.

By refusing to answer this questionnaire, Huppenthal is intentionally hiding his views so that constituents will think they agree with him. And he spends so much time talking about his legislative record, instead, because that lets him cherry-pick bills he's voted on without ever having to get into the details of where he actually stands on issues.

So, for example, Huppenthal can claim he's a supporter of education and point to a budget he voted for which included All-Day Kindergarten. But it's misleading. What that doesn't say is that he vociferously fought against All-Day-K and still thinks it's a bad idea. That's just one example of how Huppenthal has failed to support Arizona education. Other examples include where he actively worked to strip funds and decision-making from public schools. But when asked about these things, he'll cherry pick a couple of bills he's voted on in the past that makes it sound like he's God's gift to education.

In contrast, when you're talking straight with the voters and you have nothing to hide, like Donna Gratehouse, it's easy to be honest, open and transparent about who you are and where you stand. You may not align perfectly with where such a candidate stands on every issue, but Donna is respecting us enough to be explicit and clear about it. And, in fact, once we see her positions clearly, we can see how such a candidate really does agree with the mainstream on many of the issues important to common-sense moderates. Huppenthal doesn't show us that courtesy.

We need a State Senator who is open, honest and transparent with the voters. One that actually represents mainstream Arizona's values. Please vote for Donna Gratehouse for AZ State Senate.

And as for John Huppenthal, it's time to come clean, sir, and talk straight with the voters. We deserve better from you. So I join Senator McCain and several news organizations in urging you to fill out the Project VoteSmart questionnaire so we can actually see where you stand on these important issues.

Hayworth and Mitchell: Phone banking and Monday's debate!

I had a great time phone banking for Harry Mitchell tonight. Spoke to some great folks including a number of undecided Independents. After sharing with them some of the outstanding things about Harry Mitchell - a record of fiscal responsibility, a reputation for integrity and bipartisanship - they were definitely more in favor of voting for Mitchell.

One fellow was a small businessman concerned about the economy. I was pleased to be able to tell him about Harry Mitchell's track record of creating jobs and leading the revitalization of downtown Tempe. I shared how Harry Mitchell's approach to immigration reform is supported not only by Senator McCain, but also by numerous Arizona business groups, while Hayworth's approach is opposed by those same business groups as being dangerous to business in Arizona.

Another fellow was undecided and asked about some of the scurrilous attack ads Hayworth has aired against Mitchell. I was happy to share with him how, for example on the Social Security issue, TWO SEPARATE, nonpartisan organizations (AARP and FactCheck.org) had taken such exception to the false claims made by Hayworth that they specifically issued statements setting the record straight and vindicating Harry Mitchell.

I greatly enjoy speaking to the voters like this, because you get a chance to hear what people are really concerned about and help provide some information to enable them to make better informed choices.

Here are two articles on Monday night's debate between Harry Mitchell and JD Hayworth.

1. House candidates expound on debt, immigration
By Paul Giblin, East Valley Tribune

U.S. House candidates J.D. Hayworth and Harry Mitchell outlined their contrasting positions on the national debt, immigration and other topics during a feisty debate Monday in Scottsdale.

2. Hayworth, Mitchell duke it out in chamber debate
by Mike Sunnucks, Business Journal of Phoenix

Scottsdale Congressman J.D. Hayworth and Democratic challenger Harry Mitchell tussled over taxes, Iraq, energy policy and immigration Monday at a debate hosted by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

The debate will be aired on KAET (8) on Wednesday night (tomorrow) at 7 p.m. With a recent poll showing that the two candidates are only one percentage apart, it looks like Harry Mitchell has overcome a huge voter registration disadvantage. By appealing across the board to Republicans and Democrats as well as common-sense Independents, Harry Mitchell is showing that reasonable, mature and responsible leadership is still valued.

And it shows that people are getting tired of JD Hayworth and his wedge issues, divisive rhetoric, lack of fiscal responsibility and doubletalk.

It's only 12 more days until the election. Harry Mitchell has the momentum, but he needs your help to carry him over the top. If you really want to see things get better, please vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress and put the responsible grown-ups back in charge of our government.

Huppenthal Signs Anger Intel

More shenanigans in Arizona's LD-20 race. From the AZ Republic:

On Monday, Intel asked Huppenthal to remove or cover the Intel-like trademarks on several political signs touting legislation he supported that helped bring new Intel jobs to Chandler. An Intel brand manager spotted the signs, two of which are near Chandler Fashion Center and about two miles away from Intel's original factory. Its government affairs department then contacted Huppenthal.

A couple of observations:

1. Huppenthal's claim that he "helped bring Intel jobs to Chandler" has already been effectively debunked by Donna Gratehouse in their debates. The tax break Huppenthal voted for is unlikely to have been a significant factor in swaying Intel's decision to expand here compared to other locations, particularly when they already had such a vested interest and infrastructure in this location.

2. Huppenthal here blames the potential copyright infringement on his "sign guy". Used to, Republicans were in favor of taking "personal responsibility." But I guess a lot has changed since the good old days.

So, an overblown campaign claim, followed by dodging responsibility. Great.

At least Intel has clarified that they do NOT endorse John Huppenthal. Of course, another question does arise:

What, if any, was the correlation and timing between Intel's donating to Huppenthal's campaign and Huppenthal's voting to give them a tax break?

Update: Another good article on this, here, with a bit more information:

Huppenthal added that he's proud of supporting sales factor reform legislation last year that provides tax savings for companies with most of their sales outside the state. The change is credited for persuading Intel to add more than 500 high-pay, high-tech jobs in Chandler. The 5-foot-high signs feature a footnote nearly as large as its main boldfaced message. The footnote states that Huppenthal was the "final and deciding vote" on the legislation, although legislators vote at the same time on such bills and he was among 16 senators who supported the legislation.

The "final and deciding vote", eh, John? Sounds like another overblown claim.

Unfortunately, Intel - an excellent company - has had some difficulties lately and has been laying off significant numbers of people this past year. It's expected to be about 10% of it's workforce, or perhaps as many as 10,500 workers, worldwide. The expansion will continue, but now the expansion jobs will be filled predominately from WITHIN the company.

So, not only has the expansion effort failed to create as many jobs as had been expected, it seems unlikely that there will be many more new jobs in Chandler created at all through this expansion effort.

However, I'm sure Intel appreciates their tax cut. And Huppenthal appreciates the money they gave to his campaign.

As for Huppenthal's signs, though, they're only the tip of the iceberg...

Recalling the Huppenthal Controversy of '05

It was an interesting summer for Arizona's Legislative District 20 last year. In the interest of being up to date, here's an article by Dave Wells recalling (no pun intended) the controversy involving State Sen. John Huppenthal and the movement to recall him from office:

There’s hardly a voter who doesn’t want to improve schools and reduce crime. Poll after poll shows voters love it if someone else pays for it, so reducing taxes is always a hit. But while these may be the Senator’s stated objectives, they are also purposely ambiguous so prospective voters can agree with the principle and not be disturbed by the details.

But in practice the details matter. In February, Senator Huppenthal raised the dander of some parents in the Kyrene School District when he told them frankly “the cavalry (i.e., the legislature) isn’t coming” to save Kyrene from its budget predicament. At the same time, the Senator remained an outspoken critic of the merits of all-day Kindergarten, while being a prime supporter of using state funds to support religious schools through vouchers.

The conclusion reached by many of these parents was that Senator Huppenthal’s notion of improving education meant Kyrene would continue its slow starving of resources. As I noted back in February (http://makedemocracywork.org/archives/31/), Kyrene like most districts faced a 5 percent increase in costs, but the legislature had not been meeting those obligations leading over time to a dramatic pairing down of administrative staff and extracurricular activities including dropping athletics for middle school. This year the bleeding continued as the legislature ultimately rose base school funding by only 3.7 percent.

So, amid all the boasting of great things he's done for education, Huppenthal and the Republican-controlled State Senate have been slowly strangling our public schools while trying to shift as much public money as possible to private schools. And parents became so irate at this and other issues that they launched a Recall campaign against Huppenthal.

The Recall garnered 5,000 votes, not nearly enough to result in a recall election, but enough to show that there were more than a few people in our district that found Huppenthal's position on education offensive.

Of course, extra credit goes to Huppenthal for threatening to get the names of the 5,000 Recall Petition signers and to go visit each of them, personally, and set them straight. Very classy, Senator.

A whole slew of new Hayworth-Mitchell links

As the elections heat up, lots more hitting the Web about the Hayworth-Mitchell race. Where appropriate, I'll link to the main blog posts and you can through-link from there. Here, for your enjoyment, is a collection of the latest:

From AZ Congresswatch, four links:

1. 3 on Your Side tackles ad claims that Harry Mitchell wanted to give Social Security benefits to illegals and that Hayworth voted for amnesty and took the most money from Jack Abramoff.

2. Mitchell won’t seek impeachment of President Bush if elected. [Business Journal of Phoenix]

3. Hayworth is calling on Mitchell to rescind Steny Hoyer’s invitation to speak at a fundraiser Tuesday. Hoyer is in line to be House Majority Leader should Democrats take over. He’s under fire for this embarassing incident.

4. Plugged In says the Hayworth camp regrets last week’s “dust-up” at the candidate forum: “Prior to speaking, our volunteers were bullied, badgered and insulted… Although clearly provoked, it doesn’t excuse what was said, and we regret that anyone was offended.”

Again from AZ CongressWatch, six more links:

5. New Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal poll puts Hayworth at 47 percent, Mitchell at 46 percent.

6. Shrimplate says he overheard Hayworth and Doug MacEachern blasting “the gay agenda” at Fez, which is the gayest restaurant in all of Gayville in case you did not know. (Grain of salt, folks…) [N.B. This is satire.]

7. Article on what Indian money buys: “Hayworth is so successful at raising money from Indian tribes that at least four of them gave money to his 2008 campaign after reaching the limits of what they can donate this cycle.” [East Valley Tribune]

8. “Contrasting campaign styles: Republican incumbent U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth quickly and efficiently moved through a Scottsdale Leadership-sponsored candidates” reception Thursday, shaking just about every hand accompanied by a quick hello. His Democratic opponent, former state Sen. Harry Mitchell, took it slower, talking with people in small groups.” [East Valley Tribune]

9. The National Jewish Democratic Council Political Action Committee puts Hayworth on their “backwards eighteen” list. They’re apparently not thrilled with the Henry Ford thing.

10. “You can imagine that up against kind, straight-up Harry, [Hayworth] looks like a ham in a Hugo Boss suit.” [Yo, Yenta!]

And a couple more from other contributors:

11. A post from cpmaz at Random Musings

The Republic finally deigns to notice the antics of JD Hayworth's (R-Coward) surrogate.

Of course, they buried it in the Scottsdale Republic insert of their Saturday edition, and "buried" is the key word here.

My favorite line from the article:

Asked about the comments, Hayworth said he has been unable "to get an accurate accounting of what transpired" even though his campaign spokesman, Brian Hummell, was there.

12. New DCCC ad on Hayworth's opposition to stem cell research.

13. The article in the AZ Republic on the outrageous insults from the Hayworth campaign to Jews attending the Temple Beth Israel in Scottsdale last week. The article omits an even more inflammatory remark Hayworth's surrogate is reported by many as having made at the end. Aggravated at the outrage expressed at her and her husband's insulting behavior, Irit Tratt is widely reported by attendees as having said "No wonder there are so many anti-Semites."

14. AZ Republic's Plugged In has good coverage on Hayworth's "expression of regret" over the Temple Beth Israel debacle. Hayworth's campaign issued a qualified (saying his surrogates were "provoked") statement of "regret that people were offended." However, when asked about it during a meeting with the AZ Republic's Editorial Board, Hayworth flatly declined to answer saying:

"I have no comment, because I don't know. I haven't been able to get an accurate accounting of what transpired...I wasn't even anywhere around."

During the conversation, Harry Mitchell, Hayworth's Democratic opponent, interjected that a Hayworth campaign staffer videotaped the event.

"Well, thank you, Harry, maybe I'll sit down and watch that," Hayworth said sarcastically. "Thanks. That's a helpful thought."

Yes, JD, maybe you should do just that. And then offer an actual apology. As one reader commented on that thread, "I'm not seeing the regret."

AARP and JD Hayworth at Odds on Social Security

The Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP), the nation's largest, nonpartisan advocacy group for seniors, is taking the unusual step of specifically refuting a number of misleading ads put out by some congressional campaigners. Evidently, our very own AZ-5 congressional district is to receive one of these mailings.

No word yet on who will be chastized for misleading comments about the AARP position. But the good money is on Hayworth getting the AARP smackdown. [Update: it is, indeed, Hayworth. See update at bottom of this post.]

My reason for saying this? Check out the issue positions on Social Security for the three AZ-5 candidates. On every single question, AARP and Harry Mitchell agree. Hayworth, in contrast, has specifically chosen to NOT respond one way or the other, so he can't be pinned down on these issues.

Of course, it'd be electoral suicide for Hayworth to give a simple yes/no response on these questions. He is desperate to downplay his real position on Social Security. If seniors, who are the most active voters, get a whiff of where Hayworth really stands on these issues, his support among them will evaporate.

It's quite evident that Hayworth doesn't really have any solutions that he can comfortably talk about, either. Take a look at his response on whether or not to privatize Social Security - a deal-killer for many retired folks:

Question: Will you support or oppose a balanced Social Security plan to continue the program's guaranteed benefits for future generations? Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?

Candidate Response: J.D. Hayworth, Republican

As a member of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am at the center of efforts to save and strengthen this vital program. We have our work cut out for us. The annual report of the Social Security Trustees concludes that by 2040 Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations—it will essentially be insolvent. The Trustees also make clear that without reforming the program, the only way to stave off impending bankruptcy is to either reduce benefits for recipients or increase taxes on workers. My bottom line is that we must do more to protect the system without resorting to tax increases, benefit cuts, increasing the retirement age, or privatizing the system. Working together, we can find a solution.

Note here three things about Hayworth's response:

1. Hayworth specifically omits checking "Supports" or "Opposes", which Mitchell and Severin have no problem doing. He maintains plausible deniability on where he stands on privatization.

2. Hayworth's prose response specifically avoids mentioning any possible solutions to address Social Security. Despite having been in office for 12 years, and serving on the Social Security Subcommittee, Hayworth cagily avoids mentioning anything smacking of his position, here.

3. Note how Hayworth tries his best to avoid any of the controversial solutions that have been proposed: tax increases, benefit cuts, increasing the retirement age, or privatizing the system. Trying to have his cake and eat it, too, Hayworth basically is coming right out and saying that either he has no solution, whatsoever, or that he has one, but he's simply not going to tell AARP what it is.

Let's be blunt for a moment: no one in Arizona that has followed Hayworth's career believes for a second that JD Hayworth supports the AARP position on Social Security. He's just unwilling to be open about where he really stands on it, because he knows that doing so will lose him a lot of support among seniors who disagree profoundly with his position.

This is a critical issue that's been around for a while. It's still in play, too, as George Bush has come out again, calling for privatization. Having JD Hayworth in Congress to rubber-stamp Bush's effort to privatize Social Security is reason enough for many seniors to vote for Harry Mitchell.

Harry Mitchell is open and straightforward about supporting the AARP position on preserving Social Security:

We need to stop Congress' continual raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security taxes should not pay for anything other than Social Security benefits. We need to deal with this problem, devote Social Security surpluses to Social Security and keep the trust fund intact. It's time that we simply say "hands off the Social Security surplus."

We can ensure a dignified retirement for Arizona workers by ending the Bush/Hayworth raid on Social Security, stopping reckless privatization plans, expanding retirement savings incentives and enacting real pension reform.

JD Hayworth, in the other hand, is trying to play hide-and-seek on Social Security and hopes Arizona's seniors don't notice until it's too late.

Update: This article by "3 on Your Side" says that it is, in fact, Hayworth that received a smackdown by the nonpartisan AARP for distorting their position.

As for AARP, it tells 3 On Your Side that the ad Congressman Hayworth is running is misleading.

The organization even sent a memo stating, "The ad mischaracterizes the position taken in the AARP’s voter's guide."

We can therefore expect to be receiving a letter from AARP apprising us all of Hayworth's attempt to mislead the voters on the AARP's position on Social Security.

Chandler, AZ news roundup - Oct 18

Here are some key reports on the latest news and views in our community:

1. AZ Republic endorses Frankel for San Marcos Justice of the Peace.

2. Chandler Mercado to get $6 million upgrade.

3. Germann Road expansion raises questions about proposed garbage transfer station.

4. Chandler-Gilbert Community College offers high schoolers dual enrollment.

5. Downtown businesses prepare to make way for new City Hall. (No permalink, sorry.)

6. Plane lands short at Stellar Airpark runway, both occupants survive, thankfully.

7. Principle of Galveston Elementary argues with finding that school failed to meet standards.

8. Neighbors gearing up to fight another Chandler Municipal Airport expansion.

9. Chandler Fashion Center Mall manager shares lessons she has learned.

Enjoy!

Republicans having trouble getting their stories straight on "last place" educational ranking

It seems that the recent assessment that Arizona's educational system ranks in last place has thrown Republicans for a bit of a loop.

1. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne (R) is arguing that the assessment is simply wrong. Of course, he's the one who is technically in charge of managing a quality educational system, so he's understandably loathe to admit the findings of the assessment.

2. Republican candidate for Governor, Len Munsil, however, seems to embrace the last place assessment at face value. Of course, instead of blaming Superintendent Horne or the Republican-controlled state legislature, Munsil blames his opponent, incumbent Governor Napolitano.

3. And how about the Republican controlled state legislature that has worked so hard to cut public education spending for our state over the years? No word yet from them on whether they accept responsibility for the last place ranking, reject it, or point the finger elsewhere.

For example, I'm curious to see how Sen. Huppenthal (R-LD20) plans to spin this, given his membership on the Senate's K-12 Education Committee and his regularly taking credit in debate forums for the state of Arizona's education.

Maybe Munsil, Horne and Huppenthal could sit down over tea and figure out one consistent story between the three of them. When they do, I'm sure Arizona will be interested to hear how they propose to explain why they have failed Arizona's children.

Huppenthal and Horne responsible for AZ education's LAST place ranking.

From the AZ Daily Star:

A new study by a Kansas research firm ranks Vermont as the "smartest state" in the nation -- with Arizona, well, at the other extreme.

Scott Morgan, president of Morgan Quitno Press, said he isn't necessarily calling Arizona the stupidest state.

But Morgan said that, whatever name you put on it, the 21 factors measured to determine education put Arizona dead last.

Given Senator Huppenthal's penchant for taking credit for pretty much everything good to ever happen in our state during his time in office - including some not-so-good (see also "housing speculation") - I look for him to swiftly embrace Arizona's dead last ranking in education as one of the results of all that education legislation he's so often crowing about.

Thank you, Senator Huppenthal, for helping to bring Arizona's education to the absolute bottom of the stack. And while you're at it, let State Superintendent of Public Instruction Horne up there on the stage with you.

No, no, don't be bashful, fellows! Take a bow! You've earned it. Last place is surely a remarkable achievement.

We can do better than LAST place, Arizona. Let's make a change for the better. Please vote for Donna Gratehouse for State Senate and Jason Williams for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Hayworth flees forum, has representative anger constituents in his place.

While at the "Donuts and Democrats" forum this morning in Ahwatukee, I received a report from attendees of last night's Candidate Forum at the Temple Beth Israel in north Scottsdale. It sounds like it was a real barn-stormer!

JD Hayworth evidently had other priorities than attend. Now, I won't say that Hayworth was too afraid to attend and defend his record, or stand by his statements (for example, in favor of the anti-semitic Henry Ford's nativist dogma). That would be, well, dishonorable.

I will say, though, that after Hayworth has made such an issue about scheduling conflicts requiring rescheduling a forum, one could certainly be forgiven for using Hayworth's own words against him. I think the expression Hayworth used is "It seems more likely he is saving himself from the public embarrassment he would surely face when confronted with his scandal plagued past and inability to understand the talking points..."

If Hayworth feels that's appropriate, even when it's demonstrably false, then he can hardly argue against it being applied to himself. Hypocrisy much, JD?

As for the event itself, it gets worse. Evidently, Hayworth sent a couple to represent him. From my sources, the couple first complained about the format of the forum which prevented two people from speaking on one candidate's behalf and demanded to be able to speak. Following that, the husband evidently took a profoundly racist tone. He then lied about Harry Mitchell's involvement in a particular fundraiser in order to underscore the racial issue. From the reports, this led to angry shouts from the audience and some people walked out of the forum.

Later in the forum, the same fellow again used racist comments to attack Harry Mitchell and finally said, and I am simply stunned by this, words to the effect of: "JD Hayworth is probably more observing a Jew than most Jews." At which point, a large number of those present walked out in anger. Many who remained accosted the man afterward to express their resentment at the use of race and the other insults that had been part of the Hayworth's representative's discourse.

Wow.

First, Hayworth bailed out on a forum only a week after his campaign issued blatantly false, smear rhetoric against his opponent related to scheduling conflicts on a forum.

Then Hayworth's representative uses racist and insulting comments to represent Hayworth's position. Comments so infuriating that a sizeable number of forum attendees walk out in protest!

It sounds like Harry Mitchell, on the other hand, represented himself quite well as a mature, polished and professional public servant. Which, considering Hayworth's man, must have been quite a contrast.

Sadly, all of this wasn't on video. I understand that "The Hill" and and AZ Republic reporer were there, so we'll soon hear about it from them. If any of my readers were in attendance, I'd very much appreciate your comments and observations on how this all went. It sounds like Hayworth's representatives were quite inflammatory and condescending to the audience.

If this is the way Hayworth expects to campaign for the next twenty days, then I encourage him to go for it! The more people that hear Hayworth's lies, hypocrisy and divisive rhetoric, the better Harry Mitchell looks.

Update: Fellow blogger cpmaz was there and has a good write-up on the event, here. The details match with what I was told by others this morning.

Update 2: Lofty Donkey has a write-up of this event, too, with this report:

Unable to defend his repeated praise of Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic “Americanization” program, U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth bailed on a scheduled campaign appearance Tuesday evening only to send in his place surrogates who repeatedly lectured the audience at Temple Beth Israel in Scottsdale and proclaimed that Hayworth “is a more observant Jew” than those present.

The comment by Jonathan Tratt, a spokesman for the Hayworth campaign, drew loud and angry boos and caused nearly three-quarters of the crowd of more than 200 at the forum to walk out in disgust. After the walkout, another Hayworth surrogate, Irit Tratt, stood on the Temple’s bimah as she told members of the audience who gathered to ask questions, “No wonder there are anti-Semites.”

Yeesh!

Update 3: Hayworth's campaign issued a qualified (saying his surrogates were "provoked") statement of "regret that people were offended." However, when asked about it during a meeting with the AZ Republic's Editorial Board, Hayworth flatly declined to answer saying:

"I have no comment, because I don't know. I haven't been able to get an accurate accounting of what transpired...I wasn't even anywhere around."

During the conversation, Harry Mitchell, Hayworth's Democratic opponent, interjected that a Hayworth campaign staffer videotaped the event.

"Well, thank you, Harry, maybe I'll sit down and watch that," Hayworth said sarcastically. "Thanks. That's a helpful thought."

Hayworth, caught in another fib. And as one reader commented on that thread, "I'm not seeing the regret."

Harry Mitchell for Fiscal Discipline.

This morning, the District 20 Democrats held the last in their series of "Donuts and Democrats" meetings in Ahwatukee. These get-togethers have been great to showcase candidates and give people the opportunity to interact with them as well as with the issues.

Three candidates were present this morning: Harry Mitchell (for US Congress), Donna Gratehouse (for State Senate) and Ric Boyer (for AZ Corporation Commission). Each of them took a few minutes to share how their campaigns were developing and the key issues.

After the candidates spoke, we had a session to discuss the several Propositions on the ballot. Some good debate on the positions ensued - Democrats are known for their diversity - and it was encouraging to see how vibrant democracy still can be.

During this session, since I had already voted, I took the opportunity to speak further with Harry Mitchell alone. I expressed again my gratitude for his campaign and my fervent hope for his victory. I also took the opportunity to ask him about one of my key issues: fiscal discipline.

I noted that the Democratic leadership in the House has said that re-instituting PAYGO spending protocols would be one of the first priorities if (and when) they regain control of the House. I said it was particularly important to me that we regain control of our spending and asked Harry where he stood on that.

I was overjoyed to hear that Harry emphatically and unequivocally supports reinstitution of PAYGO. Frustrated by the idea of a $9 trillion national debt - that's $30,000 for every man, woman and child in America - Harry Mitchell knows it's critical to restore fiscal discipline to our national budget.

Harry noted that he has diligently balanced 31...that's 31...budgets at the city and state level in his career in public service. So he knows about making tough choices, cutting the fat out of a budget and being disciplined in spending our tax dollars.

I talk to a lot of Republicans who say they're for fiscal discipline and small government. Well, I tell them, you're probably not very happy with what the Republican party has become in the past 12 years, since they got control of the House.

The five largest deficit budgets in our country's history have come out of the Republican congress and signed by a Republican president. Republicans talk a lot about cutting spending, but then work to approve a quarter-billion dollars for a "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska and support an elective war based on false pretenses that will cost us a trillion dollars before it's over.

And those much-vaunted tax "cuts"? Well, when you are passing deficit budgets, those taxes will eventually have to be paid, in the future, plus interest. So they're not really tax cuts at all...just tax deferrals. Of course, when they're paid back, it will be the poor and middle class who have to pick up the tab.

Republicans like JD Hayworth have been obstructing PAYGO spending protocols for years, ever since they killed them. Yet they continue to crow about "fiscal discipline", hoping no one will notice that they're only paying lip-service to fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile it's the Democrats that are the ones offering serious, practical fiscal discpline legislation.

Thankfully, it looks like we may soon have a Democratic House, if the polls are accurate. And with Congressman Harry Mitchell, we have another supporter of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets to represent us.

I'll be phone banking for Harry Mitchell next week. And I urge everyone who believes in fiscal discipline and sane governance to donate, volunteer and vote for Harry Mitchell for US Congress.

Another laughably pathetic Hayworth / NRCC robocall.

I just received another Hayworth/NRCC robocall in the midst of eating my dinner. That's my third in the past week or so.

This time, I didn't catch the name of the young girl making the call - she sounded like she was about twelve - warning me in risibly severe tones of our immigration crisis. She conveniently neglected to note that JD Hayworth has been in office for 12 years and has done NOTHING about immigration during his tenure until it became a hot election topic this year.

But no matter. The NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) goal isn't to actually advance common sense discourse in these robocalls. Evidently, given their track record, it's to do their best to sling mud at JD Hayworth's opponent, the upstanding local hero, Harry Mitchell. Hey, if you can't run on your own record, some folks feel the next best thing is to try to trash the other guy, no matter how good a man he is.

In previous NRCC robocalls, it's been pretty pathetic. I think a new low in pathos (bathos?) has been reached when you robocall constituents and declaim that your opponent was - GASP! - late once paying a bill! Sadly, strangely, one of the early NRCC robocalls did exactly that.

Campaigning is tough, I know. And poor NRCC drones, they don't have a better candidate to support than JD Hayworth. I guess you have to "dance with the one that brung ya", but it is sad. But my pity for them dissolves into some degree of amazed hilarity when I see the lengths they go to in their attempt to put lipstick on their pig, if you'll pardon the expression.

This call was no better. The caller's trash-talk about Harry Mitchell was classic. She accused Harry of supporting a "liberal immigration bill" that would lead to all kinds of calamity and doom for our country. Her script had her say it twice.

I actually started laughing right in the middle of this robocall. A "liberal immigration bill"? Right. One supported by those noteworthy liberals, President Bush, Senator McCain, Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Kolbe.

What's remarkable here is that this was an NRCC-sponsored robocall. They're calling a bill supported by three key Arizona Republican congressmen "liberal"! I guess the word has completely lost its meaning in the mouths of some Republicans.

Incidentally, I wonder how Jeff Flake and John McCain appreciate having their legislation trashed by their own party. Sounds like the Republicans and Hayworth are getting desperate with Harry Mitchell's having closed the gap in the polls.

Once again, we see the blatantly misleading hypocrisy of JD Hayworth and his supporters. And once again, my dinner hour is interrupted with one more reason to vote Hayworth out of office.

Please donate, volunteer and vote for Harry Mitchell and bring some sense back to Congress.

Saying goodbye to Hayworth (hopefully).

I voted early today. Went right down to the Chandler-Gilbert Community College library - a couple of friends in tow - and voted.

It was a monstrous ballot, the longest I've ever seen at four pages. Judicial Performance Reviews and nonsense Propositions aside, though, I was thrilled to vote for Harry Mitchell over JD Hayworth and Donna Gratehouse over John Huppenthal.

For one brief moment - at least where my ballot was concerned - I was able to say goodbye to two incumbents that have been part of the divisive partisanship undermining our country and state, and endorse their replacement with two individuals in whom I have great confidence.

Speaking of Hayworth, Radar magazing has their non-partisan ranking of the top ten "America's Dumbest Congressmen." Out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, it's a pretty large and distinguished pool of talent. Competition must be pretty fierce, I'd imagine.

Out of such a crowded field, J.D. Hayworth comes in at #4 on the list. Pretty impressive, really. Among all the insight-challenged Republican and Democrat politicians in the country, Hayworth ranked as the fourth stupidest congressman in our nation according to this assessment.

The reasons for Radar evaluation?

After a long tour as a Sunbelt TV sportscaster, Hayworth rode the 1994 Republican revolution into office, where he started things off by telling a group of environmental activists that untrammeled logging was a conservation measure because forests are a fire hazard. He distributed leaflets on the House floor accusing Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer of promoting "sex training for federal employees," planning to indoctrinate them into drug use, and pushing New Age cult worship, all because of a proposal to extend health coverage for abortions under dire circumstances. And the amendment Hayworth was protesting so absurdly wasn't Hoyer's at all—it was actually the work of Hayworth's fellow Republican, Rep. Ron Packard of California.

Over the years, he racked up more than $150,000 from Jack Abramoff's clients, $64,520 in the last election cycle alone, second in the House only to Majority Leader Dennis Hastert. Alone among Congress members, though, Hayworth has refused to return any of the tainted funds, offering only this rationale: the donors don't want the money back.

Hayworth's dimness is so legendary on the Hill that one Arizona colleague told a reporter that he's a textbook example of the power of gerrymandering because of his continued ability to get re-elected despite saying "any foolish thing." Recently he put that thesis to the test, openly approving the nativist writings of the anti-Semitic auto baron Henry Ford and repeatedly mis-stating a reporter's first and last name during an interview. Of course, Hayworth is a strong supporter of "English only" bills, proving yet again the adage that those who can't do, legislate.

This reminds me of a recent nonpartisan poll by congressional staffers which named JD Hayworth the second biggest windbag in Washington D.C.

Now, I would personally reject the premise of "dumbest". I'm not a fan of slinging epithets at people, and I don't think JD is dumb. But JD Hayworth has repeatedly misspoken and misjudged key issues so much that one is forced to admit that he is critically insight-challenged. I've documented a number of instances on this blog where he has intentionally mislead or outright lied about things, most recently about his opponent, Harry Mitchell.

So, while I can't day that "dumb" is a term I'd apply to our Congressman, "windbag" probably isn't too far amiss. And I can certainly observe that Hayworth has been a miserable failure at representing us, a huge embarrassment to our state and bombastically divisive in his demagoguery.

Add to that the significant controversies related to accepting gobs of questionable Abramoff money and favors, as well as funnelling over $100,000 in PAC money to his wife, and you have a politician that, frankly, is a disgrace to his office and to us, his constituents.

For those reasons, I believe Hayworth should be voted out of office. They, alone, would be enough cause to vote for Harry Mitchell, his opponent.

However, we also have the great privilege to vote for Harry Mitchell. Mitchell is a local hero, a man of wisdom, maturity and integrity and proven public service. Everyone who knows him has highest regard for his character. Republicans and Democrats are supporting him - people of all social strata and political affiliation. He's just a good, good man.

So we don't just have to vote AGAINST Hayworth...we can actually vote FOR Mitchell, of whom we can be proud. And when was the last time you actually felt proud about voting for someone?

Don't forget to vote...and when you do, you can proudly vote for Harry Mitchell for US Congress.

Harry Mitchell's support greater with individuals; Hayworth liked more by lobbyists.

Great observation from our pal cpmaz at Random Musings:

All of JD's money advantage is in contributions from PACs.

All of it.

He picked up $256,450.38 from PACs during the period; Harry received $91,543. That's a difference of $164,907.38.

If JD's obvious and utter sellout to corporations and industry PACs doesn't open up the eyes of his remaining supporters, how about this -

In the area of contributions from individuals, Harry raised $225,803.04; JD raised $222,474.10.

JD, the "vaunted" campaigner, was outraised (in $$$) and outhustled (in raw number of contributors) in outreach to individuals by Harry Mitchell.

Those numbers speak of the kind of grassroots support that turns incumbents out of office.

Recent polls have given hope, but while JD Hayworth and Rick Renzi are poor excuses for Congressmen, they are very good campaigners.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts.

I'll go along with that! Please support Harry Mitchell and return integrity to Congress.

Mitchell overcomes Hayworth's advantage

The latest SurveyUSA poll says Mitchell and Hayworth are now neck-and-neck, within the margin of error!

From Political Wire:

In Arizona's 5th congressional district, a new SurveyUSA poll finds Rep. J.D. Hayworth in a tough fight against challenger Harry Mitchell (D) and clings to a 48% to 45% lead.

Since an identical SurveyUSA KPNX-TV poll released 9/18/06, Hayworth has lost 4 points and Mitchell has gained 5 points. Hayworth had led by 12 points, now leads by 3.

Key finding: "In the past 4 weeks, the composition of likely voters in AZ-5 has changed from 52% Republican to 48% Republican."

You know, given all the slime Hayworth has tried to sling at Mitchell in this race, including the quarter million dollars in NRCC attack ads against Mitchell, Mitchell's strength is a testimony to the power of integrity and positive results.

Given the huge Republican voter advantage in CD-5, this poll essentially means that many Republicans are growing disillusioned with the bombastic demagoguery and misleading statements of JD Hayworth and are crossing the line to support Harry Mitchell as the better man.

Of course, it's still an uphill climb, and the Republican get-out-the-vote machine is very powerful. But we're starting to see a real transformation in the attitude toward this now very competitive race among Arizonans in CD-5.

Just goes to show you can't keep a good man down: please vote for Harry Mitchell.

Update: Next Mitchell-Hayworth debate to be in Scottsdale on Oct. 23.

Happy Anniversary, Chandler Fashion Center!

This Saturday morning is beautiful weather. Bright, big, blue sky. White puffy clouds...enough to make one go shopping!

Well, okay, maybe being indoors isn't the best way to spend a day like this. But if you're in the mood, you can help the Chandler Fashion Center mall celebrate it's big fifth anniversary this weekend. Yep, five years ago this week, our neighbor opened in Precinct 134.

Not without a lot of us being pretty concerned, though, I can tell you. The idea of having a mall open up less than a mile away from your quiet, peaceful neighborhood was enough to make many home owners such as myself a little anxious. Would the neighborhood become overrun with delivery trucks, short-cutting traffic and satellite crime? Would the place be an eyesore?

Not that we had much spare bandwidth to be asking these questions. Recall, after all, that this was only a few weeks after 9/11, and folks had other concerns foremost in their minds. But still, many of us wanted to make sure that, if a mall were moving in within spitting distance, it wouldn't be just one more thing hurting our neighborhood.

Our HOAs fought with the developers and the city to make sure that the neighborhood was protected, though. We had a wall and a green belt established. Country Club was re-routed to prevent short-cutting through our neighborhood. The idea of a pedestrian gate was nixed (repeatedly).

The end result is that the neighborhoods in the western section of Precinct 134 are actually MORE peaceful with less thru-traffic than before the mall opened! And now, five years later, we have outstanding shopping, food and entertainment options within a few minutes of our doors.

It's not all been perfect. Vandalism to the wall separating CFC and Hearthstone has caused some stress for folks on that side. But on the whole, CFC/Westcor has been a great neighbor.

In honor of their fifth anniversary, here's my Top Ten List of "Best Things About Having Chandler Fashion Center as a Neighbor", developed with help from some friends:

10. City tax revenues of an estimated $8 million a year from Chandler Fashion Center businesses. That's revenue that our City Council can use to improve our streets, field more first responders and provide some of our neighbors more reasons to launch a Recall campaign.

9. Because malls are the only place you can find the addictive ingredient found in those Chick-fil-A sandwiches.

8. Development of satellite businesses - such as Cosco and Target - are saving me lots of gas money and time in traffic when I go shopping for groceries and other household items. The benefit to my blood pressure alone is staggering.

7. Where else can you buy a single Gummy Bear?

6. Because Santa Claus stopped making house calls in 1975.

5. A three minute drive or a ten minute walk brings me to a cornucopia of entertainment and restaurant options so extensive, I can't decide where to be overcharged first!

4. Because at the mall, your kids get to bother somebody else for a while.

3. It's a lifesaver for those of us who desperately need those big pretzels and overpriced sunglasses between the hours of noon and six on Sunday!

2. It's a perfect place to conduct sociological experiments. Er...go people-watching, I mean.

...and the Number 1 "Best Thing About Having Chandler Fashion Center as a Neighbor"?

1. Chandler Fashion Center Mall: Bat-free since 2003!!!

I kid, I kid! I kid because I love. :D

So, here's looking to another five years of community harmony and good shopping, CFC! Congratulations on your Fifth Anniversary and many happy returns! (Heh, well, maybe not returns...)

***

Also, here are some recent articles written in local papers commemorating the anniversary:

1. Fashion Center has a happy 5th birthday.

2. Chandler mall to change over time.

3. Mall's 5 years warrant major coverage.

4. Chandler Fashion Center turning 5.

5. Fashion Center a regional draw.

6. Changes inevitable at Fashion Center.

Chandler AZ news roundup - October 13.

A few key developments going on this past week in Chandler, culled from the latest edition (Oct 7) of the "relentlessly local" San Tan Sun News (24 MB .pdf):

1. Covance facility going ahead, but not at Price and Germann (page 1).

Under tight security and surrounded by numerous dignitaries, including former Gov. Fife Symington, three former Chandler mayors, current Mayor Boyd Dunn and four council members, Covance executives announced they will build their medical research facility on a 50-acre site off Gilbert and Ryan Roads instead of the original 38 acres on Price Road near Germann.

2. Chandler teachers receive grants (page 4).

Teachers at 20 Southern Chandler schools were recently surprised with mini-grants totaling $19,682 when the Chandler Education Foundation (CEF) “grant patrol” awarded grants to 124 teachers at 34 CUSD schools.

3. City Councilwoman Donovan's commentary boosts A-OK program (page 5).

Chandler’s Acts of Kindness program recently received a boost after a SanTan Sun News commentary encouraged more community participation. The City’s A-OK program, which helps residents in need, is funded by utility customers who add a dollar to their monthly payments. After Councilmember Trinity Donovan’s commentary appeared in the SanTan Sun News, August contributions to the program jumped to $5,484 – a 21 percent increase over the previous four-month average.

4. Early Voting at Chandler-Gilbert Community College (page 9).

Get ahead of the crowds by casting your vote at Chandler Gilbert Community College’s Pecos Campus, which serves as a Maricopa County General Election Early Voting site Mon., Oct. 9 through Fri., Nov. 3. All registered Maricopa County voters are eligible to take part in the early election. Voting takes place in the campus library 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays, Oct. 21 and 28 only.

5. Commentary by City Councilman Orlando: AAA bond upgrade (page 31).

The City of Chandler received its second AAA bond rating from one of the nation’s leading financial firms, Standard and Poor’s. This is tremendous news for the community on many levels, but primarily, we will save taxpayer’s money on future interest costs as we issue new bonds to pay for major infrastructure projectsnumber of projects with one-time money – a term that means we spend it one time and do not program it into the budget in future years so that there are no ongoing costs. Basically, we rebalanced our portfolio by reinvesting those funds back into the community.

6. Letters to the Editor (page 31). Always interesting, occasionally insightful.

And, as we've come to expect from the San Tan Sun, pages upon pages upon pages of advertisements. Enjoy!

Many common-sense conservatives and moderates feeling more at home with Democrats.

I've been asked - sometimes politely, sometimes notsomuch - why I can make my home with Democrats when I am an evangelical Christian and otherwise tend to common-sense centrism and moderation.

Why, goes the line, can you make your home with those extremist liberals?

I've tried to calmly explain that, for one thing, you don't have to agree with everything in your political party to make a home there, as long as you think some effective progress can be made by carving out a niche within the party. For another thing, many Democrats in Arizona aren't generally as wildly liberal as they're painted by the extremists on the right wing. Many of us are either conservative or fairly moderate, or exhibit our progressive tendencies in areas which, traditionally, were the purview of conservatives (such as civil liberties).

Indeed, many Republicans I encounter have some very strange attitudes and misconceptions about moderate Democrats. For example, I was recently castigated by a fellow evangelical for being a Democrat and supporting "late term abortions". I had mentioned nothing about my position on abortion at all, but somehow, my acquaintance assumed it, and missed by a mile.

I had to explain that, no, I most certainly do NOT support late term abortions, for goodness sake! I also had to explain that, in fact, Arizona law prohibits it. And what's more, every Democrat I've ever met (and discussed this with), including those actually working for Planned Parenthood, is happy with that law. It's a bald-faced lie that Democrats as a group are in favor of late-term abortions - a lie that has been propagated by Republicans trying to demonize Democrats among social conservatives. Somewhere, somehow, this fellow had just bought into the propaganda and never thought to question it, I guess.

As I've said before, I'm conservative on some things and progressive on others. And on the things I don't have a strong opinion about, well, I try to take as common-sense an approach as possible.

But speaking more broadly, the Republicans have shifted so far to the right that the party itself has abdicated many of its foundational, conservative principles. Principles which, in many ways, are now far more effectively championed by the Democrats. To illustrate, allow me to point to two articles that make the case far more eloquently than I could.

The first is an article by Markos Moulitsas, known to many folks on the internet simply as "Kos", and known to many right-wing pundits by far less flattering epithets. Kos is the owner of the blog DailyKos, with perhaps one of the largest followings in the USA. He is a Democrat who, like me, recently switched from being a Republican. And he's relatively moderate in the political spectrum, though many folks on the right wing have spilled a lot of ink and vitriol to paint him as a raving Marxist.

Kos recently penned a short essay exploring the growing libertarian elements of some of us in the Democratic party. He noted that the Democrats are becoming the party championing civil liberties, which used to be the purview of the Republican party. Nowadays, it's the Republican party that is working hard to roll back civil liberties, constitutional protections and right to privacy.

Kos also noted how Democrats are becoming the go-to party for fiscal spending restraints, such as PAYGO, while the Republicans have repeatedly obstructed PAYGO. Republicans have voted repeatedly to pass record high deficits, a gargantuan debt and worked to establish a monstrously bloated government. In no way can the borrow-and-spend Republicans be considered fiscally conservative, or even fiscally responsible, today.

Kos also noted how the government isn't the only threat against personal freedom, but unregulated corporations, focusing only on their bottom line, can be just as serious a menace to individual liberty. Republicans, on the other hand, have become the party of corporatists, enabling the robber barons of the 21st Century to exploit the environment and individuals.

In all of these issues, the Democrats, he argued, are actually championing many of the key, traditionally conservative, libertarian ideals that Republicans have abandoned.

Needless to say, this thesis resulted in a flurry of writing to parse and anayze Kos' essay. Many Libertarians (with the big "L"), thought it interesting, while others could not get past other elements of the Democratic ideology. In response, Kos penned this short essay, which I think eloquently speaks to the issues and puts the "Libertarian Democrat" theme in proper context. I offer it as Exhibit One in support of my membership in the Democratic party.

As for Exhibit Two, I will present this editorial, from Steve Rose, the Chairman of the Johnson County Sun, a very conservative paper in Kansas. Mr. Rose explains why his paper, traditionally a bastion of conservative and Republican endorsements in one of the reddest of red states, is endorsing so many Democrats this year. It is so eloquent, that I have to include a passage here:

"...I always beat up on Democrats in my columns. I have called them leftists, socialists, and every other name in the book, because I thought they were flat-out wrong.

And, for the most part, I still do. I am opposed to big government. I have little use for unions. I never liked the welfare plans. I am opposed to weak-kneed defense policies. I have always been for fiscal prudence. I think back to the policies of most Democrats, and I cringe.

So, what in the world has happened?

The Republican Party has changed, and it has changed monumentally.

You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election. They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.

To win a Republican primary, the candidate must move to the right.

What does to-the-right mean?

It means anti-public education, though claiming to support it.

It means weak support of our universities, while praising them.

It means anti-stem cell research.

It means ridiculing global warming.

It means gay bashing. Not so much gay marriage, but just bashing gays.

It means immigrant bashing. I'm talking about the viciousness.

It means putting religion in public schools. Not just prayer.

It means mocking evolution and claiming it is not science.

It means denigrating even abstinence-based sex education.

Note, I did not say it means "anti-abortion," because I do not find that position repugnant, at all. I respect that position.

But everything else adds up to priorities that have nothing to do with the Republican Party I once knew.

That's why, in the absence of so-called traditional Republican candidates, the choice comes down to right-wing Republicans or conservative Democrats.

And now you know why we have been forced to move left."