Update, including an Interview with Donna Gratehouse

A quick update on a few things:

1. I'm backlogged with writing up some posts for the Precinct right now, what with working a full-time job and attending college part time at night, not to mention the other projects I have going on. My take-home Statistics final, for example, promises to require about 10 hours to complete this coming week. So much for my "spare time". My posting will be rather curtailed for the coming week, as a result.

2. Earlier this week, I was contacted by Le Templar, Senior Opinion Writer for the East Valley Tribune. Le asked if he could interview me on my recent report on Senator Huppenthal's Wikipedia-editing. I agreed. Look for Templar's article sometime in the coming week.

3. Tomorrow, I also hope to post Part Two of my interview with Chandler City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan. I plan to post a new installment about every week for the next month or so. Thanks, all, for your patience as I transcribe this lengthy but very interesting interview with Councilwoman Donovan.

4. Meanwhile, this morning I had a chance to sit down over coffee with recent Democratic candidate for Arizona State Senate (LD20) Donna Gratehouse. During our chat, I asked her a few questions about her post-election processing. Here are her responses (paraphrased):

Geo: What was the most positive aspect of the recent Senate campaign for you?

Donna: That's hard to pin down, but I'd say that it was meeting so many great people in our district. When you're campaigning, you have an entry into meeting everyone from neighbors to prominent community leaders. Being able to connect with them all was really neat.

In politics, some folks have a tendency to try to exploit our differences. But I saw a lot of similarities in the people I met. And the similarities shared by folks in our district are pretty great.

Geo: What would you say was the most challenging or difficult aspect of the campaign?

Donna: The research! When you're running for office, you have to be knowledgeable about all of the issues that face the state. You have to consult a lot of different sources, assimilate vast amounts of information and know enough about a lot of different things. I did a lot of checking and cross-checking of facts to make sure the studies I was quoting and the statistics I was using were solid instead of just depending on one study that supported my views.

When I wasn't out campaigning, meeting with people and hearing their concerns, I spent several hours a day with my nose in a book, reading a newspaper or on the Internet to make sure I was knowledgeable about the issues facing our state.

Geo: Senator Huppenthal is a seven-term incumbent with a 14% Republican voter registration advantage in this district. Yet you came within 4% of beating him. That indicates significant resonance with your campaign and a fair degree of crossover in support of you. To what would you attribute your strong showing?

Donna: First, the strong work by my fantastic campaign team. We had a great team and we ran a good race. Second, a lot of people in District 20 who know Huppenthal's record are very unhappy with him. Especially educators and parents of children in the school system.

Third, there was a strong degree of dissatisfaction with the Republican legislature and the way they had opposed and obstructed a very popular Governor Napolitano. And finally, the national level dissatisfaction with Republicans and crossover support to favor popular Democratic candidates like Harry Mitchell probably had an effect in D20, as well.

Geo: That leads me to the $64,000 question: are you thinking of running again?

Donna: I'm definitely considering it. If I do, I'll get an earlier start on it next elecion cycle. We did a great job this time, but it would have helped had we started five months earlier. I'd hope to have an exploratory committee by the end of 2007 if it looked feasible.

5. Speaking of Donna, later this evening, at the District 20 Democrats meeting, new district officers were elected for the coming two years. Donna Gratehouse was elected unanimously in her bid for the 1st Vice Chair position. So she'll be a key part of the district's leadership team helping develop and implement strategy over the coming months and years.

The D20 Democrats also have a new District Chair. Frieda Pollack was unanimously elected as the new DC for District 20. The assembly also expressed its thanks to former District Chair Michael Williams for his service to the district for the past several years.

It will be interesting to see what the coming year brings for our district as these folks get settled into their new roles.

Senator Huppenthal responds to my Wikipedia-editing report.

Some interesting fallout following my post last week on Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal's editing Wikipedia articles to cast himself in a glowing light, delete embarrassing facts about himself and friends and skew articles on policy issues on which he has been working:

1. A number of other Arizona blogs linked to the post, as we bloggers are wont to do.

2. Fellow blogger Zelph presented the story on Air America's Saturday segment of "Truth To Power". They were very complimentary to the blog (thanks, folks). I also called in and we spoke briefly about the post. The segment was aired nationwide.

3. Bloggers in other states in the country have now linked to the post. The story is now getting hits from a rather broad region across the US and into Canada. One link today came from Washington D.C., which raised an eyebrow. :)

4. Word of the story has reached back to Wikipedia, which has now inserted an "Autobiography" tag into Senator Huppenthal's entry. Huppenthal's entry now has the following text featured prominently at the beginning:

This article is an autobiography, and may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

The talk page in question has a reference and link to my specific blog entry. It would appear that the Precinct 134 Blog's story is now a permanent part of Huppenthal's autobiography on Wikipedia.

5. Senator Huppenthal has responded to me by email.

I am assuming that an email from a State Senator in response to a publicly posted story is not off the record if it doesn't explicitly say so, so I'm sharing the Senator's short response here:

Hey George, the campaign is over. I am doing policy work.

I am well aware that I leave my IPO address on all of my wikipedia postings. Wikipedia has an option for posting anonymously. I chose not to do that. That's the honest man's trademark. He leaves his signature.

Which of my postings is false? I am willing to change them.

John Huppenthal

I'm not going to go too far with the anonymity thing, because it's patently ridiculous that someone's IP address is anything like leaving their signature on an article. Indeed, if Senator Huppenthal wanted to leave his signature on the article and make it clear that he wrote it, he could have easily referenced himself as a source for much of the purple prose in his own entry, for example.

What's more, the only way to have your IP number suppressed from a Wikipedia edit is to actually register an account with Wikipedia. Some might argue that would be even less anonymous, as it would tie your account name to any edits you made REGARDLESS of which computer (or IP) you were editing from.

Nevertheless, as for editing one's own Wikipedia entry so it reads "like an advertisement" glowingly extolling your praises, well, that's just tacky and in bad taste, as well as being fundamentally against the stated protocols for Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV).

Far more importantly, though, Senator Huppenthal's response blatantly ignores the unethical nature of deleting from a publicly maintained database such information that is true but embarrassing to him or his political allies.

Deleting true information so as to suppress it from public knowledge is a kind of falsehood, Senator. Particularly when done by someone such as yourself, charged with maintaining the public trust. That's why it's unethical. Please tell me that fundamental ethical distinction is not actually lost on you.

[Update: The saga continues as a Huppenthal partisan using a newly created account repeatedly vandalizes Wikipedia and is permanently blocked as a result.]

A good idea from Senator Huppenthal

Yesterday's blog post detailing my investigations into Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal's Wikipedia-editing shenanigans has become rather larger that I thought it might. I was actually on national radio this afternoon! I don't know whether the story will have legs, but I'll be interested to see how it develops.

Tonight, I'd like to focus on another aspect of Senator Huppenthal's service - something that I think is a good idea he has instituted. Namely, his "Hupp Groups".

Senator Huppenthal has, during his political career, instituted weekly meetings of special interest/focus groups for each of the committees on which he serves. Currently, Huppenthal serves on as the Chairman of the Judiciary, Vice Chairman of the Appropriations and as Member on the K-12 Education commmittees.

As an example, the Hupp Group for the Judiciary includes volunteers pulled from the various court jurisdictions, legal associations, and so forth. According to my understanding of Huppenthal's description of the "Hupp Groups", each of them meets once per week to discuss and refine bills to propose to the legislature.

Now, there are two observations I'd like to make on this:

1. This is a good way to get buy-in from a focus group on what kind of issues exist that need to be addressed by specialized legislation.

Of course, depending on how the representation is drawn together, the folks could constitute a special interest group that could skew the kind of legislation being proposed. For example, if the Hupp Group for the Judiciary is made up of Federalist Society members, elected Republican Justices and others who have a similar ideological bent, or if they get their direction from Hupp to favor such an ideological bias, then there's a risk, there.

But overall, it sounds like a potentially good idea to be able to pull together a variety of perspectives and expertise from the citizenry to help you serve as a representative on a given committee.

2. My second observation is that this goes a long way toward explaining Huppenthal's profusion of legislation that he's sponsored in his political career. Basically, he has a lot of help conceiving, researching and developing bills by these special interest/focus groups in each of his committee areas.

The question remains, of course, whether these groups are ideological extensions of Huppenthal, or who bring their own special interests to the process such that legislation they propose may be self-serving to those consitituents. I would like to know who serves on these groups so as to know who has this special "in" with Senator Huppenthal and thus who has perhaps an uncommon degree of influence in the process.

(To understand my concern here, consider the example of Vice President Cheney's Energy Policy TaskForce, which is suspected to have been staffed significantly by representatives of the oil industry.)

But let's assume that these citizens whom Senator Huppenthal has brought together to help advise and assist him on developing so much legislation are not motivated by their own special interests to the detriment of the broader constituency. I know, in this day and age, that takes a huge degree of credulousness. Nevertheless, the idea of bringing together constituents with expertise on special taskforces to assist him in his role as a representative of the people is a very good idea.

Update: Senator Huppenthal responded to this post with an elaboration on the composition of these "HOOP" Groups and how citizens can become a part of them and observe the deliberations. I have included the text of his email in the comments on this thread. Thank you, Senator Huppenthal for your clarification.

Senator Huppenthal, you're BUSTED!

[In this Geo's Precinct 134 investigative report, Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal (R-Ahwatukee) is caught apparently editing Wikipedia articles to polish his own image, delete embarrassing facts about himself and political allies and skew entries on key issues to favor his political views. It is unclear whether these edits were made from his personal computer or from his Senate office during work hours.]

In a recent meeting with Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal, he told me that he enjoyed reading this blog, "even though I beat the hell out of him."

Well, we're going to test that a bit more, tonight. Because I'm about to "open up a can" on the good Senator in this post!

Like many folks, I was amused at Stephen Colbert's recent coining of the term "wikiality" to refer to the kind of reality that is created simply by the aggregate acceptance of a statement of facts presented in an entry on the open source encyclopedia Wikipedia. When Colbert demonstrated just how easy it was to edit Wikipedia, his account was banned for wreaking havoc.

In fact, many politicians have been tempted, and failing to resist the temptation, have been busted for editing their Wikipedia data to eliminate controversial information or to "polish" their credentials. Some even sabotage their opponents' articles. WashPo has good article outlining some of the recent examples of this behavior.

It would appear that our own Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal is a Wikipedia aficionado, himself. And not necessarily in a good sense, either.

Huppenthal's involvement in Wikipedia first came to my attention by way of some healthy suspicion on my part. Some months ago, I was reading his Wikipedia entry, here, and thought that it sounded like it had been written in unabashedly glowing terms either by a member of his staff or even by the good Senator, himself.

It was so blatant that the Wikignomes, quiet volunteers who continue to police the Wikipedia site and keep it clean and orderly, posted the following disclaimer on the page:

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup.
This article or section reads like an advertisement.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.
Blatant advertising can be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}.

Indeed, many of the passages in Huppenthal's entry are straight out of Senator Huppenthal's boilerplate campaign commentary. The entry speaks of a demigodlike politician in such unrepentantly egotistical terms that would make one's own mother blush. There's no "neutral point of view" anywhere in sight.

The main author of the entry even had the temerity to delete the reference to the Recall effort launched against Huppenthal last year. This passage had to be re-inserted by a gnome, who also had to tone down some of the worst point of view (POV) language that made the entry so egregiously biased. In doing so, the gnome posted the following comment:

revert removal of recall mention, its pretty notable, also removing POV language like "successful", LOTS of fact tags., this still reads like an ad.

Yes, it still does read like a campaign ad, even with the language somewhat toned down. Yet, I still couldn't prove that Senator Huppenthal actually wrote the entry. Perhaps it was an enthusiastic campaign staffer or a member of the family, expressing their adulation with the Senator. So I decided to let it lie.

However, a new and damning light was shed on this when I recently met with Senator Huppenthal in the Senate building downtown a week ago. In our meeting, as Senator Huppenthal was waxing eloquent about how much research he did, he also offered that he edited Wikipedia entries. "I've just recently been editing an entry on Merit Pay for Arizona," he shared in passing.

I filed that piece of information away for later as there were other things he said in our meeting that I wanted to follow up on, too. Today, though, I went to the "Merit Pay" entry on Wikipedia and gave it a look.

Sure enough, a large section of the Merit Pay entry had been amended to include a treatment of Merit Pay specifically in Arizona. In those few paragraphs, Huppenthal's name is mentioned eight times, in similarly glowing terms. Indeed, a major portion of what our Senator wrote is a blatant campaign ad in favor of Merit Pay and in favor of his own involvement in it.

But that's something I'll leave to the Wikignomes. I was more interested in actually making the connection between Senator Huppenthal and his editing of the specific content of Wikipedia. And how he may be using Wikipedia for a political purpose.

Fortunately, Wikipedia registers the IP, or computer address, of every user making edits to its entries. They do that to prevent abuse. Sometimes IPs can fluctuate, so it's not foolproof. And since names aren't connected with IPs, you can't always know who is associated with a given edit.

However, in this case we're in luck. We're in luck because Senator Huppenthal specifically said he was editing the Merit Pay entry. And the IP logged with those edits, the one apparently belonging to Senator Huppenthal, is 24.251.57.26.

We're also in luck, because Wikipedia also registers ALL edits made by a user at a given IP. So all we need to do is to click on the IP - Huppenthal's IP - and we get a list of ALL of the Wikipedia edits Senator Huppenthal has evidently made:

* 23:55, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (top)
* 14:45, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 14:33, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Bonus for school district performance is critical for successful merit pay)
* 10:20, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Bonus for school district performance is critical for successful merit pay)
* 06:20, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 06:17, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 16:33, 21 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Standardized testing and public policy (top)
* 15:21, 18 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Merit Pay in Arizona)
* 15:07, 18 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Merit Pay in Arizona)
* 17:59, 16 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Merit Pay in Arizona)
* 13:41, 16 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay (→Merit Pay in Arizona)
* 06:40, 15 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 02:15, 15 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 15:13, 13 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Merit pay
* 01:49, 29 September 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal (→Arizona State Senate (2005-Present))
* 10:26, 4 September 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal (→Arizona State Senate (2005-Present))
* 10:15, 4 September 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal (→Chandler City Council (1984-1992))
* 09:49, 4 September 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal (→Chandler City Council (1984-1992))
* 09:40, 4 September 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal (→Chandler City Council (1984-1992))
* 03:48, 26 June 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal
* 15:02, 3 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ken Bennett
* 15:02, 3 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ken Bennett
* 05:22, 12 May 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal
* 03:54, 4 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Slade Mead
* 01:05, 4 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Slade Mead
* 01:00, 4 May 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal
* 01:53, 1 May 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal
* 19:12, 28 April 2006 (hist) (diff) John Huppenthal

Take a look at that list for a minute.

First of all, it confirms that Senator John Huppenthal has been spending a lot of time polishing and re-polishing his own Wikipedia entry. An AWFUL LOT of time, in fact. The kind of time people spend on polishing up their own campaign web sites. Only, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a campaign web site.

A second observation: many of these edits appear to have taken place during office hours. That's right, it appears that Senator Huppenthal was not only polishing his own hagiography on Wikipedia, but it's possible that he's been doing it on Senate time, using Senate office space and a Senate computer. That's surely questionable. (Update: As one reader mentioned in comments, the IP address tracks back to Chandler, so it appears to be Senator Huppenthal's home computer.)

What's more, if we backtrack these edits to his Wikipedia entry, we also see that it was, apparently, him that specifically eliminated the reference in his own entry referring to the Recall initiative launched against him. That's in very bad taste, at the very least.

And there we see several days he spent editing his self-congratulatory section in the "Merit Pay" entry.

We also see where Senator Huppenthal seems to have edited the entry on "Standardized Testing" to insert half a dozen paragraphs of text supporting "high stakes" testing which Huppenthal favors here in Arizona. He ends his section with a jab at Tennessee, whose approach he doesn't like.

But look at that list of edits again, and you'll see something even worse. Senator Huppenthal has evidently been editing his former opponent and recent candidate for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Slade Mead's entry, too.

Okay, so what did Huppenthal edit in Slade's entry, then?

Slade's previous entry said this:

In 2003, A fight ensued over the GOP's proposed budget.This event resulted in Mead's exile from the party, and in 2004 [[John Huppenthal]] was chosen by the Republican party to challenge him in the primary. After a bitterly fought campaign in which Huppenthal outspent Mead almost 2 - 1, Mead lost.

Huppenthal then edited it to say this:

In 2003, A fight ensued over the GOP's proposed budget. Mead eventually sided with the Democrats, citing a lack of funding for Public education. This event resulted in Mead's exile from the party, and in 2004 State Representative John Huppenthal challengee [sic] him in the primary. After a bitterly fought campaign, Mead lost.

Huppenthal edited out the reference to his spending twice as much as Slade Mead, as well as the reference to his being asked by the Republican Party to run against Slade in the primary. As for the latter point about being asked by the Republican Party to oust Mead, who knows? But that Huppenthal significantly outspent Slade to beat him in the primary is a stone cold fact. And suppressing that fact by deleting it is blatantly unethical.

So it would seem that Senator Huppenthal not only has a penchant for writing his own glowing Wikipedia entry (and deleting embarrassing details) as well as fluffing up issue entries to reflect well on him and support his political views, he also edits the entry of his opponent to suppress facts that reflect poorly on him.

Bad form, Senator. Extremely bad form.

But wait, it gets even worse.

Also on that list of edits Senator Huppenthal has made this past year are two on former Arizona State Senate President Ken Bennett's entry. What did Senator Huppenthal's avid editorial pen do to that entry?

Why, Huppenthal apparently completely deleted two whole sections discussing the controversies that had embroiled then-President of the Senate Bennett. The portions that Senator Huppenthal excised from the Wikipedia entry on Bennett are provided here:

==Controversies==
+ In 1989, several underground petroleum storage tanks owned by Bennett's Oil Co. released petroleum into the environment. In the years following, Bennett's undertook various remedies to decontaminate the area, paid for by its insurance company. Bennett's and its insurer, Federated Mutual Insurance, both placed five separate applications to the state for reimbursement of the cleanup costs. The first four were approved, but the last was denied under a recently enacted act limiting reimbursement to costs not covered by insurance. Bennett's appealed the denial in court, arguing that the law was intended only to prevent double recovery, not to limit the state to providing only secondary insurance. The court affirmed the state's interpretation of the law and denied reimbursement. [http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/lca/pdf/adminAppeal/h/LC2003000690001DT.pdf ]
+
+ On January 23, 2006, Bennett's 18-year-old son Clifton Bennett (the youngest of Bennett's three children), was arrested and later charged with 18 counts of aggravated assault and 18 counts of kidnapping. Bennett admitted that while volunteering as a junior camp counsellor the previous summer, he and a friend had assaulted 18 boys at the camp ranging in age from 11 to 16 years with an activity he called "brooming." He said that he intended to humiliate the boys by forcing them to line up and bend over, holding them against their will, and prodding their clothed anuses with broomsticks and flashlight handles. Clif Bennett also told the judge that serving jailtime for a felony would prevent his plans to serve as an LDS missionary overseas. Prosecutors considered filing charges of sexual assault but ultimately accepted a plea bargain of one felony count of aggravated assault, allowing him the possibility of avoiding imprisonment. Several parents of victims were unhappy with the deal, blaming its leniency on undue influence from his powerful father. [http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/123050.php]

Here again, a Wikignome had to come along and revert the entry to re-insert these portions that Huppenthal had deleted.

So let's see:

1. Polishing his own Wikipedia article so that it reads like a campaign brochure/hagiography? Check.

2. Eliminating embarrassing facts from his own entry? Check.

3. Editing issue entries to support his political views as well as fluff himself up? Check.

4. Editing his political opponent's entry to eliminate references to facts that would reflect poorly on himself? Check.

5. Editing an entry of a political friend to completely delete and suppress whole paragraphs detailing relevant political controversies? Check.

And you don't even have to take my word for it - you can follow all the links for yourself.

Furthermore, these are only the edits we know about from being made from this one computer. If it is, indeed, Senator Huppenthal's Senate Office computer, then it doesn't include any edits he may have made from any other computer, such as one in a home office, for example. Or vice versa: if this IP is for his home computer, then we don't know what other edits he may have made from his Senate office or elsewhere.

As has been observed by others when politicians have been caught doing it, this is unethical behavior for an elected official. It would be bad enough if a private citizen were so skewing the representation of facts (or in some cases completely suppressing them) for political advantage. But for a State Senator to be doing this is inexcusable.

Indeed, the Internet can be your enemy as well as your friend, if you try to abuse it and the people that rely on it. But my greater concern goes far beyond hacking Wikipedia entries, as tacky and unethical as that is.

Sure, Huppenthal is apparently skewing the availability of information to people on the Internet - and even suppressing it in some cases - so as to give a biased view of himself, his political friends and issues of concern to him and so forth. But if doing this raises no qualms of conscience with Senator Huppenthal, what else is he doing that we don't know about?

What other means of skewing information and suppressing data might Huppenthal be engaging in, in forums which don't so readily lend themselves to holding him accountable, and where the consequences to our community may be far, far graver?

Senator Huppenthal, your explanation for all this? Someone else using your computer? Error in the Wikipedia logs? Wardrobe malfunction?

[Update: Further developments, including a response from Senator Huppenthal and my analysis of his response.]

[Update 2: The saga continues as a Huppenthal partisan using a newly created account repeatedly vandalizes Wikipedia and is permanently blocked as a result.]

Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Well, I just finished one Thanksgiving dinner with part of my family, and heading out now to have a second dinner with another set of relatives.

I plan to explode quietly sometime this afternoon.

Anyway, I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving! Don't eat too much cranberry sauce (as if that's possible)!

Yours,
Geo

Harry Mitchell meets with centrist and conservative Blue Dog Dems

From The Christian Science Monitor article, Harry Mitchell continues to prepare to be a good representative for CD-5:

Congress's pragmatic newcomers
Capitol Hill freshmen promise practicality over party loyalty.

From time to time, a freshman class in Congress leaves its mark on Capitol Hill. There were the reform-minded Watergate babies of 1974. More recently came the GOP insurgent "citizen legislators" of '94.

Now, the class of '06, too, has been elected on a surge of voter discontent, and although the new class isn't as big as those two, it has the potential to leave its own stamp.

If interviews with incoming freshmen are any indication, that mark will be pragmatism first, even at the expense of party loyalty, and a get-things-done sensibility.

...For many Democrats elected in previously staunch Republican districts, that means paying closer attention to the mood of constituents than falling in lockstep with national Democratic Party leadership that tends to be more liberal.

That was the thinking behind incoming Democratic Rep. Harry Mitchell's decision to attend a Blue Dog caucus last week.

"I met with the Blue Dogs. It's not what I am, but it fits my district" in Arizona, Mr. Mitchell says.

It's encouraging to see that Harry Mitchell is actively engaging a broad spectrum of ideology in order to better represent his district. Folks here range from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, with a lot of moderates, as well. Regardless of Harry's personal ideology, he will have to represent us all. It looks like he's starting off on the right foot.

More about the Blue Dog Democrats, here.

(Hat tip to Plugged In for the link.)

Chandler news and views roundup - Nov. 22, 2006

A few articles for you today on politics and public policy in Chandler, Arizona:

1. High-rise plans up in air

The construction of an 8-story hotel and 15-story luxury high-rise condominium in Chandler is still up in the air, according to Chandler Planning and Development director Doug Ballard.

Construction of Elevation Chandler, as the project is called, halted in May, leaving an 8-story skeleton jutting against the Chandler skyline at the intersection of Loop 101 and Frye Road near the Chandler Fashion Center.

Developer Jeff Cline said last month unanticipated increases in construction costs and lack of funding to meet these increases led to the $250 million project's delay.

2. Stalled project to be auctioned

For sale at public auction: Two parcels of prime real estate next to Chandler Fashion Center. Amenities include a partially built tower called Elevation Chandler.

The mortgage holder of developer Jeff Cline's stalled high-rise condo-hotel is foreclosing on the project, according to documents filed with the Maricopa County recorder. A trustee's sale is set for Feb. 5.

3. No-parking rules tightened

City OKs move that could pinch day-labor area

New mandatory court appearances for anyone standing, stopping or parking in a "no parking" zone anywhere in the city have upped the ante for contractors who pick up day laborers along Arizona Avenue.

The new rule, changed by the City Court and approved by the City Council, could result in a maximum $477 citation, depending on a judge's decision, officials said.

4. Police can ticket indoor smokers

Chandler City Attorney Michael House has changed his opinion about the city's role in enforcing the new state smoking law.

House said last week that Chandler would stop enforcing smoking rules once the new state law takes effect May 1. The new law, based on Proposition 201 approved by voters Nov. 7, is more restrictive than the city's, which for three years has allowed smoking in bars but banned it in most other public places. Prop. 201 includes a ban on smoking in bars but exempts private clubs, tobacco shops and some hotel rooms.

The attorney said this week that it will be up to the state to penalize businesses that permit indoor smoking in violation of the law, but municipal police can still issue citations against smokers. That's because lighting up in most indoor places will be considered a "petty criminal offense."

5. Chandler High targets truancy

There are many reasons students skip school - they do not feel like going, need to work, are ill or are simply in the habit of ditching class.

No matter what the reason, truancy is against Arizona law, which requires children between the ages of 6 and 16 attend school unless they are ill or have a legitimate reason for the absence.

This why many counties across the nation, including Maricopa, are instituting what are known as diversion programs - strategies to keep children out of the court system. The Court Unified Truancy Suppression, or CUTS, program has been implemented in several Maricopa County schools with the aim of thwarting truancy.

Chandler High School, 350 N. Arizona Ave., sent a letter to parents over the fall break in October, letting them know the CUTS program was being implemented and outlining its details, especially the consequences for children considered "habitually truant."

Harry Mitchell to help on ethics reforms

From the Washington Post:

Democrats Plan Series of Votes on Ethics Reforms
By Jonathan Weisman

Despite divisions among Democrats over how far to go in revising ethics rules, House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year to demonstrate concern about an issue that helped defeat the Republicans in the midterm elections.

But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package.

...While there is broad support for reform, Democrats face divisions on how far to go on some issues, such as whether to establish an independent board to enforce ethics rules. But leaders are eager to show that they are serious about tackling the corrosive influence of lobbyists and money, so much so that they are willing to spend days working on the issue. They may even let the divisions play out in public, with amendments allowed that may or may not pass, on issues from campaign finance to independent oversight.

"We heard continually out here that people were tired of the way business is conducted in Washington," said Rep.-elect Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.). "They didn't like the way lobbyists had so much influence. They didn't like the way rules were not enforced. They just didn't think things were being done right."

...Amendments aimed at reducing the influence of lobbyists would go to swing-district Democrats who campaigned on ethics themes. One is Mitchell, who unseated Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) in large part by stressing Hayworth's links to Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist.

Interview with Councilwoman Trinity Donovan - Part 1 of 5.

Last Thursday, November 16, 2006, I was privileged to sit with Chandler, Arizona's newly elected City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan for an interview. Our session covered a broad range of topics, including Councilwoman Donovan's background, her interest in public service, her perspectives on the issues facing the city and her insights into the recent campaign.

Councilwoman Donovan was extraordinarily generous with her time, allowing me to interview longer than we had planned. The result is a fairly long interview, lasting over an hour, which will take perhaps six hours and 30 pages for me to transcribe. So I will need to present the transcription to you in parts as I can complete it.

So here is Part 1 of what I expect will be a five-part series.

Many thanks, again, Councilwoman Donovan, for giving this interview and for your gracious generosity with your time!

---Part 1 of the Interview follows---

We began our session by speaking informally, during which time Councilwoman Donovan shared with me about some community service trips she had taken in the past. Comparing experiences working in community service in other countries, I shared how my work had been in language development, literacy and translation in minority communities in Africa. Ms. Donovan also revealed that she had studied Swahili for three years while in college and hoped one day to take a service trip to East Africa.

Geo: You were talking about how you studied Swahili for three years?

TD: Why did I do that? I think that learning a language is one of the best ways to learn about a culture because the words that are important in a language are the words that are used in those other languages. They say that Eskimos have eighteen different words for snow and for us being in Arizona, we wouldn’t understand those differences. Perhaps others who have lived in places with more snow would understand the differences better – the wet snow, the dry snow. So you can learn a lot about a culture.

In high school, I felt that Africa really was a forgotten continent. We didn’t learn much about it and many people didn’t speak about Africa. They speak about it as if it’s a country instead of a continent. So I was interested in learning more about that and had a teacher who was from Kenya. He would say that he learned Kikuyu, his tribal language, English in school and Swahili on the streets to be able to play basketball with boys from other tribes. So it was nice to have him and learn the language and more about that culture.

Geo: Do you speak Swahili, would you say?

TD: (Laughs.) No. I say I’ve “learned” Swahili. And there was a time there were some tapes at the library of learning Swahili and I’d pick up one every year or so just to refresh my mind. I’m sure if I went back there I could pick up some things. After my first year, my teacher did a great job. I thought I knew everything about Swahili and was very confident about it and then taught seventh graders in Pittsburgh - over a summer program I taught them Swahili, taught them songs and then the language.

They were kids who came from poor schools and neighbourhoods. They were put in a school with amazing resources for the summer in a rigorous summer program for seventh and eight graders. Some people were saying “here are kids, you could get them ahead in languages such as Spanish or French, but you’re teaching them a language that, once they leave, they’ll have no ability to keep up.” But I think in learning a language – besides learning about the culture, which I think is really important – learning the skills of how to learn a language is also important for those kids. So they were learning something they hadn’t learned before.

Now, my second year in Swahili talked about abstract concepts and we read literature and I realized how little I really knew about the language! So I’m glad I taught it after my first year when I felt like I had a good handle on the language.

Geo: Do you see yourself going there, to East Africa?

TD: I would love to go to East Africa.

Geo: What do you see your – would that be just a vacation or something else?

TD: You know, when I’m able to do service trips, I’ve found that, while I enjoy travelling throughout the world, when I’m able to do service, when I’m in that community it really helps me understand that community so much quicker. Being a tourist is nice, but, being able to work with others from the culture, you get to taste foods that you may not as a regular tourist and you get to learn from people who live there every day on a much more intimate basis.

Geo: You’ve had a significant amount of service experience here in Chandler, with ICAN, with the United Way. There are a variety of other things you’ve been involved in, you’ve been involved in the church, as we were talking about earlier. What would you say are some cultural insights that you’ve learned about Chandler, through your service to Chandler, that you might not have otherwise have picked up if you hadn’t been doing that?

TD: I think the diversity in Chandler is one thing that I’ve really been able to see through my work at ICAN and United Way. There are many people, we have high incomes in Chandler, our median income is high, there’s high educational attainment and those are great statistics. In addition to that, in that median, there are very low and very high income and educational attainment. Seeing that diversity (gestures to the wall map of Chandler) - and the map is behind you so as I look at you I see Chandler as well – looking at that diversity really…it…

I’m so happy to have grown up in Chandler and glad to be able to work here and now serve here in a new capacity on Council. I grew up in Central Chandler, maybe “North Central” Chandler now, lived for a time in South Chandler and now my home’s in East Chandler. Worked in downtown Chandler with ICAN for five years as the CEO and a couple of summers before that. And then I did a lot of my walking in West Chandler because that was the place that I really hadn’t lived in. And what I saw while walking the neighbourhoods for a Saturday, seeing the difference in one neighborhood to the other, the ones that have been there 50 years to the ones that have been here 20 years to the ones that have been here two years. It’s one thing to think you have to drive to a different area, but just in the walking time you see the difference.

Going back to the service part, serving in downtown Chandler, I think something that was the most astonishing was, for me, the educational attainment percentages. These are 2000 Census statistics so they keep growing and changing but in Arizona 19% of the people haven’t graduated high school or gotten their G.E.D.s by age 25. So 19%, that’s kind of baseline for Arizona. In Chandler it’s 12% of people, so we’re much better in that more people have graduated high school or gotten their G.E.D.s. And we have a lot of higher degrees here. But in the four square mile area of downtown Chandler, people over age 25 who haven’t graduated high school or gotten their G.E.D.s is 39 and a half percent.

So when I think of that, it really extends down to kids, if 40% percent (about) of your role models, the people who you see in your neighborhoods on a daily basis haven’t been able to achieve graduating from high school, for you to think that YOU can achieve it is like “Who do you think you are to think you can surpass these people who are around you?” So I think, for me, that’s something that’s a statistic that’s astonishing in comparison with the rest of Chandler. But it also speaks to the difference that can be made of helping kids see what opportunities exist outside of the neighborhoods that we all come from. You can’t know what you can do if you don’t know what’s even out there or what’s possible.

Geo: Talking about education for a little bit, that’s one of the hot topics in just about every election (as it was in this last election at the state and national level). At the city level, you’ve only been in the role for two or three months but from your perspective, what is the city grappling with in terms of education? What are the issues that are on the table, things you see on the horizon?

--to be continued soon in Part 2!

Election results finalized - news wrapup

Arizona's election results have been finalized. Harry Mitchell has officially won CD-5, as has Warde Nichols in LD21. No surprises there.

Here are a few articles with the latest, including an interesting quirk that resulted in Harry Mitchell getting a sweet office in DC!

1. It’s finally official — Mitchell’s the winner

Congressman-elect Harry Mitchell finally will deliver the acceptance speech he had hoped to give two weeks ago.

Election officials finalized the vote count in Arizona’s 5th Congressional District on Sunday, formally giving the victory to Mitchell, the Democratic challenger.

Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth conceded a week ago, but Mitchell held off declaring victory until all the votes were tabulated.

Through an odd quirk, the delay played to Mitchell’s advantage in a time-honored congressional tradition. Mitchell was assigned Hayworth’s office suite, a piece of political real estate that no freshman would ever expect to acquire.

2. Tim Wilson's take on it:

All the votes are in...

Every provisional and absentee ballot in Maricopa County has been counted. Definite props to the election workers. According to AZCentral, they were working 12 hour shifts.

So, with the end of vote tallying comes the end results.

Mitchell- 101,838 (50.4%)
Hayworth- 93,815 (46.4%)
Severin- 6,357 (3.1%)

3. Tedski got the scoop about Mitchell getting Hayworth's office:

J. D. Hayworth ☼, being a long time member and one that was moving up in the House leadership, had swanky digs in the Rayburn House Office Building. The office was not only on an upper floor, but in a corner with a nice view. For a number of reasons, not least being that his re-election bid was officially up in the air, Hayworth's office was never entered in the lottery. Oops.

So, Hayworth's old office was allocated to the member that defeated him, Harry Mitchell.

4. Harry Mitchell makes his victory statement:

Dear Friends,

I want to thank the people of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District for electing me to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am humbled by your trust and confidence.

With their vote, Arizonans sent Washington a clear message: it's time for both Republicans and Democrats to put the people's work before partisanship.

They believe, as I do, that we cannot address our nation's most important challenges unless we work together. We have an obligation to secure our borders, invest in embryonic stem cell research, restore fiscal discipline, and demand a plan for victory in Iraq.

5. Nichols declared winner in District 21 legislative race

Republicans managed to hang on to legislative District 21 after all. A final count of votes from the Nov. 7 election shows incumbent Warde Nichols defeated Democratic challenger Phil Hettmansperger by 863 votes to represent the district that covers most of Chandler, the Sun Lakes community, and portions of west Mesa and Queen Creek.

Thank you, Senator Huppenthal.

On Friday, a group of us representatives from Maricopa County's Student Public Policy Forum (SPPF) went to the State Capitol in Phoenix to meet with some legislators and staff. I'm a SPPF representative from Chandler-Gilbert Community College.

I'll share more about our visit and the results later. But I did want to express my thanks for Senator John Huppenthal's taking time out of his day to meet with us.

Our meeting with him in the Senate building lasted about 20 minutes. We asked Senator Huppenthal a number of questions, many of them related to education policy and legislation. I also asked him about some of his legislation related to education which seemed to be, in my view, running counter to his stated principle of "local control" in decision-making. I'll share more about that and Senator Huppenthal's response later, too. It was a very cordial visit and I thank Senator Huppenthal for his time and attention.

As we were leaving, I shook his hand and told him "I appreciate your public service, and I also appreciate your participation on my blog."

He laughed and replied, "I enjoy your blog! Even though you beat the hell out of me."

I laughed, too, and reiterated that I appreciate his service to our community.

Thank you, again, for your time on Friday and for your public service, Senator Huppenthal. Though we disagree on some issues, I do value your willingness to serve our community and the effort you put into the task. I continue to pray for you as one of our community leaders.

Also, while touring the State House side of the lege, our forum was allowed onto the floor of the House for an information session. During the presentation, I sat in Representative Bob Robson's seat. So thank you, too, Representative Robson, for your hospitality in sharing your desk with me. :)

McCain flip-flops on overturning Roe v. Wade

Following on an earlier post that showed how Senator John McCain has blatantly flip-flopped on the "number of troops in Iraq"" question (and both times been opposed to the advice of military commanders on the ground) comes this revelation via dKos and ThinkProgress.

McCain's flip-flopping:

In 1999: "[C]ertainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

vs.

Yesterday on ABC: "I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support."

So, McCain has flip-flopped on his 1999 statement (when he was running for the Presidency last time) that supported Roe v. Wade. He now supports overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to make all abortion illegal except for cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Regardless of the merits of one position or another, McCain is clearly flip-flopping on key issues for political expediency. He's trying now to appeal to his conservative base. If he wins the primaries, he'll change his colors again to appeal to moderates and Independents.

So let's keep score on Senator "Flip-Flop" McCain:

1. Opposed Falwell and other evangelists, calling them "Agents of intolerance", then flip-flopped and embraced them.

2. Opposed Shinseki and supported for Rumsfeld's plan of fewer troops in Iraq, then flip-flopped and opposed Abizaid to call for more troops in Iraq.

3. Opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, then flip-flopped and called for overturning it.

Shame on you, Senator McCain! On three of the biggest issues in politics today, you've completely flip-flopped. I hereby revoke your "Straight Talk" merit badge.

And if you continue in this vein, it won't matter whether you win the Republican primary. The moderates and Independents will already have learned that you can't be trusted on these key issues.

Memorials, controversy and playing politics with national grief.

I was down at the State Capitol in Phoenix on Friday and had a few minutes before my appointment, so thought I'd take a look at the much maligned 9/11 Memorial. Frankly, in the context of the rest of the statements displayed, I didn't find the two or three that were so controversial to be outside of the scope of propriety, given the purpose of the memorial.

In fact, I think it's quite telling that we've heard very little about the 9/11 Memorial controversy since the elections. But nevertheless, I would urge people to see the thing themselves before they make up their own minds.

Just out of curiosity, I went over to the Viet Nam Memorial and paid closer attention to what was written on it since the last time I was there. I was stunned to notice something. Namely, there are far more potentially controversial passages on that memorial than on the 9/11 monument.

I jotted down a few of the quotes:

1968: My Lai massacre occurs

1969: 4 students killed by National Guard at Kent State

1971: Lt. Calley convicted of My Lai massacres

1972: US bombard North Viet Nam on Christmas

1973: US Senate rejects $260,000,000 in aid to South Viet Nam

1973: US House of Representatives approves $474,000,000 cutback in aid to South Viet Nam

1975: President Ford requests massive aid to South Viet Nam to halt offensive. Congress refuses.

1975: Saigon falls to NVA on April 30th, 1975.

Now, those statements are clearly at least as interpretable as being condemning of US actions than anything on the 9/11 Memorial. So why haven't we heard a hue and cry from Don Goldwater, Len Munsil and JD Hayworth to get them removed from the Viet Nam Memorial?

Perhaps it's as Janet Napolitano recently said of Hayworth, that consistency just isn't their best thing.

Chandler, Arizona news and views roundup - November 18, 2006

A few recent articles from the Arizona Republic pertaining to politics and public policy in Chandler, some informative and one irreverent:

1. City: Covance won't hurt water

Protesters trying to prevent Covance from building in Chandler claim the company's pharmaceutical testing practices will contaminate the city's wastewater system. But municipal officials say they have studied the global drug development company's operations in other states and found no problems.

At the same time, an Arizona State University environmental engineer said pharmaceuticals are already entering Valley cities' wastewater systems via people's bodies and their home plumbing systems.

2. Dist. 21 totals expected Monday

It will likely be Monday before Chandler voters in District 21 find out who joins incumbent Republican Steve Yarbrough in the Arizona House of Representatives.

But the vote gap has widened and Republican incumbent Warde Nichols was leading Democratic challenger Phil Hettmansperger by 790 votes Friday. Hettmansperger said he isn't ready to concede and wants to wait until all votes are counted.

3. New schedule concerns parents

A small but vocal group of parents and staff from Mesa Public Schools this week raised concerns about proposed schedule changes that would take effect next year at the district's junior high schools, including Hendrix in north Chandler.

The school district, with guidance from principals, devised the schedule to make room for more science instruction while attempting to preserve physical education and elective course offerings.

Included in the plan would be optional classes before or after school for core subjects such as math or social studies, clearing the way for more time to take electives during the regular school day.

But at a public meeting Thursday attended by about 20 people, parents worried aloud about the impact on students' physical fitness, reading skills, extracurricular activities, fine arts and transportation to and from the optional classes.

4. Note to Chandler council: Airports and homes don't mix

Tonight, Chandler City Council is hearing a request to change the Chandler Airpark Plan to allow a developer to build homes in the direct path of the runway.

How many ways does this sound like a bad idea?

5. Give the councilman a good laugh

City Scope is Chandler's official community newsletter. It is chock-full of great information, like how to avoid burning down your house on Halloween and where to go to find out how to trim your hedges.

But every time I finish reading City Scope I'm haunted by the same burning question - why is Councilman Martin Sepulveda sad?

On the back page of the newsletter is a picture of our current City Council. Six of our council members are cheerily smiling for the camera, but the seventh is stone-faced with a hint of melancholy. That would be Martin Sepulveda.

So what's going on with him?

Did Hayworth torpedo Shadegg's leadership bid?

Phil Boas at Plugged In points us to an interesting article on Arizona Congressman Shadegg's recent loss in his bid for Minority Whip.

Says Boas:

Billy House, writing from the Republic’s Washington bureau, reports that defeated 5th District Congressman J.D. Hayworth may have exerted influence with GOP colleagues to help defeat John Shadegg in his bid for minority whip. Shadegg lost Friday’s private ballot 137 to 57 to Missouri’s Roy Blunt.

Reports House:

Shadegg would not say so Friday, but his efforts to defeat Blunt may have been hindered by fellow Arizona GOP Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who is steamed over his defeat last week by Democrat Harry Mitchell.

In angry comments to fellow House Republicans this week in Washington, Hayworth has been pointing to what he views as involvement by Shadegg and fellow Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake in negative pre-election depictions of him and other Republicans in some media.

...If J.D. Hayworth believes Flake and Shadegg cost him his seat, he’s looking at the wrong Republican. The culprit resides in his own mirror, the one who changed his look and, more importantly, his manner from the more genial, if big talking, politician to the razor-edged border fanatic. Hayworth’s personality is luminous and expressive and given to comic book comparisons, so here’s one: Foghorn Leghorn plays better than Sgt. Slaughter.

Interesting. So, which cartoon character is a good comparison to a bully who, beaten in a fair fight, becomes so angry and spiteful at losing that he takes it out on his own colleagues?

Chandler, Arizona news and views roundup - Nov. 16, 2006

I had a delightful interview with Councilwoman Trinity Donovan today. I hope to transcribe and post it online within the next few days. She is a remarkable public servant and Chandler is fortunate to have her on the Council.

Thank you, Councilwoman Donovan, for the generosity of your time and attention today!

Also, here are a few news politics / public policy items in our community:

1. Nichols’ margin widens in District 21 race (no permalink)

A two-term Republican representative is breathing a little easier this week after his Democrat challenger threatened to unseat him in the Legislative District 21 race.
Rep. Warde Nichols has pulled ahead of challenger Phil Hettmansperger by almost 800 votes as of Tuesday, according to unofficial primary election results. Nichols was losing to his Democratic counterpart by eight votes at the close of last week’s Nov. 7 election.

“Things are definitely looking up,” Nichols said Wednesday, who was exactly 788 votes ahead of Hettmansperger. “If things continue to go my way, I continue to look forward to representing the people of District 21.” District 21, which is known as one of the most conservative districts, is usually a lock for Republicans. Hettmansperger said he hopes his election will inspire future Democrats to run in the district.

2. Ryan Park dedication set (no permalink)

Park and civic officials will honor its farming heritage with a dedication and historical kiosk at a new city park in south Chandler. A new interpretive history kiosk will be unveiled at the dedication ceremony for the new Ryan Park tomorrow, Nov. 18, from 10 a.m. to noon. This free, family-friendly event will celebrate the opening of the new 17.5-acre neighborhood recreation space located at 2450 S. Hartford St.

3. Elementary? Not exactly: Chandler district attempts to ease boundary confusion (no permalink)

The Chandler Unified School District is attempting to make its boundary options for its two new elementary schools as simple as possible this year, although district administrators admit the plans can appear a bit complicated. “There’s so much to go into them that there really are somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 options,” said Terry Locke, director of community relations for the Chandler district.

4. Keep new Chandler homes away from airport

Chandler council should heed noise warnings

Chandler planners like to talk about creating a development plan for the city and then developing according to that plan. So it's odd that they seem happy to recommend building homes near Chandler Municipal Airport, an area not planned for neighborhoods, kids and pets.

The city has a Chandler Airpark Area Plan for land use, yet some planners and the Planning and Zoning Commission are recommending that City Council discard that and rezone to build two neighborhoods.

5. Interesting Kyrene school board mix faces challenges

As the national and state election hubbub dies down, we can turn attention to local issues. Few elected positions are more important to communities than their school boards. Voters in Ahwatukee Foothills, west Chandler and Tempe apparently have chosen an interesting mix for the Kyrene Elementary School District governing board in a race that remains tight. A candidate who ran against member Rae Waters during a recall election in March will be joining her on the board in January, it appears.

Michael Grant leaving Horizon

I just ran across this bit of news on azcentral.com:

Michael Grant leaving 'Horizon' after 25 years

One month after celebrating his 25th anniversary as host of the public affairs program Horizon, Michael Grant has announced that he is leaving the nightly Channel 8 (KAET) show.

"After 25 years of juggling two to three assignments at a time, I decided it was time to focus on my day job," says Grant, an attorney. "You just reach a point where you think, 'Well, maybe 19 election cycles is enough.'"

Okay, I will admit it: I am a big fan of Michael Grant and his show. I realized years ago that I was sadly afflicted with the politics bug when I began taping Horizon to watch later and reading the transcripts of broadcasts when I couldn't watch the show.

Thank you so much for the insightful and probing interviews and analysis of local politics and public policy, Michael. We'll miss you!

Oh, and if you ever want to dip your toe back into the politics and public policy media thing, you're always welcome to be a guest blogger on the Precinct 134 blog!


(Yes, I know, he's probably never heard of this place.)

McCain...for Rumsfeld's plan before he was against it.

Again, I don't normally cover Senate races, but I've noticed something in the past week that doesn't seem to be receiving very critical attention in other media or blogs. Namely, that John McCain's argument that "we need more troops" in Iraq is blatant flip-flopping on the issue.

Many people in the media have noticed his call for more troops, but they seem to still have election fever so much that they're trying to place it in the context of his future run for President. So we hear them opining about how it will position him to be the "Wanted to Fight to Win" candidate and other framing.

Personally, I've been interested in squaring Mr. Straight Talk's recently more fluid rhetoric with his positions in the past. And so, today, when I received an email from the American Progress Action Fund, I had to share it with you.

Long story short: McCain has flip-flopped horribly on this issue and now finds himself squarely at odds with the military leadership on the ground. As he has readied himself for his run for President, we find him taking more and more unwise or extreme positions. And he has long ago lost the right to claim for himself the mantle of a Straight Talker.

To wit, from the email:

"I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops."
-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 11/12/06

VERSUS

"Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."
-- CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid, 11/15/06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 16, 2006
McCain's Dangerous Vision

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will deliver two major speeches today to prominent conservative political groups -- GOPAC and the Federalist Society -- in what is being billed as his assessment of the current state of conservatism and "how he would lead it." For an American public that just recently registered its utter dissatisfaction with the current course in Iraq, McCain's prescription for the future will be extremely unsatisfying. He has repeatedly called for an increase in U.S. troop levels, isolating himself from most national security experts and U.S. generals in Iraq. Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels, informing him that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. [George] Casey, the core commander, Gen. [Martin] Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’” Escalation in Iraq would be a disastrous course for our nation's strategic security interests. Moreover, the overstretched American military does not have the manpower to provide more troops in Iraq. "He would just repeat the mistake of Vietnam," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "If McCain refuses to acknowledge that some wars can become simply unwinnable, he may be exposing a weakness in his thinking that ultimately deprives him of the presidency."

WESTMORELAND REDUX: Echoing the failed strategy of the escalation during the Vietnam War, McCain has suggested that putting more troops into the middle of Iraq’s anarchic civil war would help the U.S. to ultimately prevail. Like Gen. William Westmoreland before him, who during the Vietnam War confidently declared victory and led the American military buildup in that country (from 20,000 troops in early 1964 to approximately 500,000 during the 1968 Tet Offensive), McCain risks shattering public confidence and undermining the resolve to fight the much broader war against global terror networks. Beyond the practical unfeasibility of sending in more forces, McCain misdiagnoses what adding more troops at this point would do to the situation on the ground in Iraq. As the Center for American Progress’s Iraq redeployment strategy argues, "A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis." Commanders in Iraq have acknowledged that the recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position -- now six in ten -- a number sure to increase if McCain were to get his way.

FOR RUMSFELD'S STRATEGY BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT: McCain's call for increasing troop levels in Iraq comes three years too late. As former administration officials and military generals have noted, a larger initial force was necessary to provide security on the ground and prevent the growth of the insurgency. Prior to the Iraq war, outgoing Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld argued for going in with substantially lower troop numbers than the prior Gulf War, a position which then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki publicly disputed. In October 2002, McCain was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews about troop levels. McCain said at the time, "I believe that the kind of technology and the kind of military that we have today doesn't require massivenumbers of troops. You might have noticed the conflict in Afghanistan, we had a few soldiers on the ground and used very incredibly accurate air power." As the Iraq occupation played out, it became increasingly clear that Rumsfeld and McCain were wrong and Shinseki was right. Yesterday, Abizaid testified, "Gen. Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution -- U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution -- should have been available immediately after major combat operations." McCain has conveniently forgotten that he endorsed an occupation strategy that would not require "massive numbers of troops." A year ago, he said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, "citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops."

AN UNSUSTAINABLE STRATEGY: In a September 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and National Review editor Rich Lowry laid the foundation for McCain's escalation strategy. "More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment," they wrote. In a Financial Times op-ed earlier this week, Kristol joined with his Weekly Standard colleague Robert Kagan in arguing for "increasing U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 50,000 in order to clear and hold Baghdad," perhaps attempting to make McCain's proposal for a 20,000 troop increase appear more reasonable. Outside of proposing the reinstitution of the military draft, the McCain-Kristol position is practically unfeasible because the U.S. military is already overstretched. "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that`s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps," Abizaid said. Earlier this year, incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), said, "Army readiness is in crisis. ... Today two-thirds of the brigade combat teams in our operating force are unready." Center for American Progress national security analysts Lawrence Korb and Peter Ogden noted, "When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve." The National Guard is “in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Lowry, possibly reflecting the thinking of McCain, said, "People would react favorably" to escalating troop levels in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 17 percent of Americans support increasing force levels.

MCCAIN BELIEVED WE WOULD BE GREETED AS 'LIBERATORS': As the violence in Iraq has intensified, McCain has tried to distance himself from his own previous positions. In August, McCain generated headlines for criticizing the Bush administration's happy talk. McCain said that talk “has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” McCain was certainly not among those who "understood from the very beginning" that Iraq would be a difficult endeavor. In fact, just days before the invasion of Iraq was launched, he was asked directly about how he believed the conflict would play out. On MSNBC's Hardball (3/12/03), Matthews asked, "Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" McCain responded, "Absolutely. Absolutely." Just a few days later, McCain appeared again on Hardball (3/24/03), and defiantly proclaimed, "There’s no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."


Under the Radar

IRAQ -- KEY BAKER ALLY BRENT SCOWCROFT WANTS TO 'STAY' IN IRAQ: A host of former advisers to President George H.W. Bush have gained ascendancy in recent weeks. His former Secretary of State James Baker and former deputy national security adviser Robert Gates will assume major roles in determining the future course of Iraq. Both Baker and Gates are protégés and colleagues of Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser under Bush 41 who opposed the Iraq war. This assemblage of Baker, Gates, and Scowcroft has been described as "pragmatists" and "realists" by the media. The New York Times, noting his connection to Scowcroft and Baker, suggested the Gates' appointment may be "part of a carefully orchestrated course change." Neoconservatives have argued that the Baker-Gates-Scowcroft position "presents a clear shift" on Iraq. But these claims by the media and neoconservatives appear to be creating a false myth that the rise of the "realists" will change course in Iraq. In a recent interview with the Turkish Daily News, Scowcroft explicitly argued the U.S. must continue to stay in Iraq. "I think we have to stay and try and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable," Scowcroft said. In other words, if Scowcroft's position is representative of his colleagues, the changing face of the Bush administration will bear a close resemblance to the old face.

State Senate staff shakeup could mean different things

From the East Valley Trib, a shake-up in the Arizona State Senate staff:

New Senate president fires 4 top staffers

Newly chosen state Senate President Tim Bee fired four top staffers Tuesday, promising “a culture change” at the Capitol in how laws are made.

Gone are Greg Jernigan who had been chief of staff, operations manager Rob Dalager, senior policy adviser Mark Swenson, and Nick Simonetta, who had been in charge of publicity.

Bee said the changes are consistent with the message sent by voters nationwide, where voters wanted lawmakers who make responsible — and responsive — decisions. He said bringing in new staff will help that occur at the state level.

The problem, Bee said, is partly a function of term limits: Legislators can serve no more than eight consecutive years in the House or Senate.

By contrast, staffers got to stay for years. In fact, Jernigan started working for the Senate when Bill Jacquin was president in the early 1970s, though his tenure includes an interruption of several years.

The result, Bee said, is that staffers sometimes were the ones setting policy rather than implementing what the Republican leadership and individual legislators proposed.

Okay, so we have the new Senate President Bee letting four top staffers go. That could be a positive thing if he is cleaning house as a harbinger of a more inclusive, bipartisan governance culture, to which Bee alludes.

Of course, it could just be a step toward consolidating power by bringing in his own staff. Staff that will be more amenable to and supportive of his agenda.

Or, it could just be an effort to blame the Republican malaise on staffers, rather than the Party having to take responsibility for their governance style.

Or a combination of all three: house cleaning, shoring up power and scapegoating. Only time will tell.

Wactivist shares stories on CD-5 race

Toni Cani at Wactivist.com just posted some post-election "war stories". As the post, they are probably "probably part true, but probably part exaggeration." Nevertheless, two of them are related to the CD-5 race:

When Harry Met Karl

Two days ago new members of the House went to the White House for a reception. When Congressman-Elect Harry Mitchell approached Karl Rove, Bush’s Brain looked at him and said “Harry Mitchell – that statue of you in Tempe is something else!.” The new member didn’t know whether he should be impressed, or worried that Rove knew something like that about him!

...

Senator McCain – RESPECT TO THE DEMS

A couple of democratic campaign staffers head to a Suns game a few days after the election. While there they see (and pose for a photo with) Senator McCain. After posing for the photo – McCain says “well, I’m glad that Democrats are strong enough to knock off J.D. Hayworth.” Wow!

Wactivist also has a picture of the incoming class of Congressman. Harry is on the top row, sixth from the right, somewhat obscured by the fellow in front of him.

You'll notice that the Representatives-elect aren't looking directly at the camera. That's because the official photographer, I believe, was far to the left of where this photographer was standing. I saw a video snippet last night on CSPAN and Harry features more clearly in the video and, I suspect, in the official photo.

Latest Yellow Sheet Highlights

Last Friday's Yellow Sheet Report from the Arizona Capitol Times has a few key highlights related to CD-5 and LD-20:

1. State Senator John Huppenthal was elected last Wednesday to replace Tibshraeny as Majority Whip. Bee became Senate President, Verschoor became Majority Leader. Some are speculating that Tibshraeny is eyeing a higher office - possibly Congressman Flake's (CD-6).

2. State Senate Dems are postponing their leadership elections until November 21st. House Dems elected their leadership last week.

3. On the way the Republicans have shut the Democrats out of the legislative process:

On election night, one member of the House Democratic Caucus spoke to our reporter and characterized the difference between Groscost and Weiers by how they interacted with the Minority. "At least Jeff would give us the time of day--it may not have always been the right time or the right day--but at least he talked with us. With Weiers, it's like we're not even there."

4. Congressman-elect Harry Mitchell, on the campaign:

He told our reporter yesterday the lowest point in his campaign came when a poll showed him 12 points down. "I was trying to phone for money and, I'll tell ya, I just got nowhere," he said. "High point? There were a couple of them. One was the USA Today survey showing us up 2 points, and the other was The Republic editorial. There was no wiggle room there. I think it helped with the undecideds." Here's what the apparent congressman-elect said about the negative ads aired against him: "I'm very comfortable with who I am. That to me was very desperate. They were really over the mark. I was inoculated ahead of time of what kind of campaign this was going to be."

Republican sweep in District 20 has subtext

Arizona's Legislative District 20 returned three Republicans to the State Legislature in this month's elections, but gerrymandering and the Dem district leadership's failure to field any House candidates are major factors in the Republican advantage.

From Newszap.com:

In a seemingly Democratic-dominated national race, Chandler has spoken in favor of Republican House and Senate candidates.

Nearly 38,000 voters participated in the District 20 state senator race, where Republican Sen. John Huppenthal (R-Chandler) will remain in office after he defeated competitor Donna Gratehouse by nearly 2,000 votes, according to unofficial Maricopa County election results. Some early and provisional votes were still being counted last week after the Independent’s press deadline.

“I am always humbled by the opportunity to continue to serve,” Sen. Huppenthal said. “The voters spoke with a loud voice here. They want people to sit down and get the problems solved.”

First of all, let me say that the day one sees anything akin to humility in service from John Huppenthal is one for the history books. This is a man who has literally taken credit for just about everything, from Intel's expansion to the Desert Breeze Park to the housing bubble. And for him to suggest that his narrow victory is anything akin to a mandate is simply risible.

All that's missing here is for Huppenthal to say something about inventing the Internets and "earning and spending political capital."

Seriously. When an incumbent Republican wins an election by five percent of the vote in a district with a 12-14% Republican registered voter advantage, what the voters are saying about the incumbent really isn't very flattering. Or, if you prefer, it says extraordinarily good things about his opponent, Donna Gratehouse.

It means that a huge number of Huppenthal's own party rejected him and voted for the Democratic challenger. And what's more, a majority of Independents also favored Gratehouse over Huppenthal. If the District weren't gerrymandered such that Huppenthal had a massive voter registration advantage, we'd be welcoming Senator Gratehouse to the AZ Senate.

So congratulations on your victory, Senator Huppenthal. But the elephant in the room is that a shift of only 1000 voters in this race would have meant you would have lost and Gratehouse would have won. When so many in your own party cross the line to vote for a newcomer, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee: even a significant number of your own party want you out of office and want Donna Gratehouse to replace you.

Again, from the article:

Nearly 47,000 votes were cast in the District 20 state representative race, where Republican candidates Reps. John McComish (R-Ahwatukee) and Bob Robson (R-Chandler) earned nearly 20,000 and 18,000 votes, respectively, while Libertarian opponent Jack Heald brought in about 9,000 votes, according to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office unofficial results.

Sadly, the Democratic leadership fielded NO candidates in the House race for LD20. This was a HUGE missed opportunity, given the dynamics of this election cycle (see my previous post on the House race in LD21). Hopefully, 2008 will not see a repeat of them ceding the battlefield without a fight on the House side.

District 21 House race still a contest

Arizona's Legislative District 21, bordering LD20 to the East, is still undecided as Republican Warde Nichols and Democrat Steve Hettmansperger see only eight votes now separating them in the vote count for the State House race.

From Newszap.com:

It is a classic cliffhanger.

District 21 Republican incumbent Rep. Warde Nichols (R-Chandler) and Democrat challenger Phil Hettmansperger of Chandler are locked in a political battle to the finish, with the Nov. 8 poll results showing only eight votes separating them from defeat or victory.

Final results are due Nov. 15 and if the vote tallies come within less than one-half percent of each other a recount os mandetory [sic].

District 21 Rep. Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler) and Sen. Jay Tibshraeny (R-Chandler) sailed to easy victories Nov. 7, with Sen. Tibshraeny garnering 34,272 unopposed votes and Rep. Yarbrough receiving 24,237 votes.

The strong showing in Chandler by Mr. Hettmansperger, a retired teacher, caught some Republican elected officials by surprise.

“I was shocked,” said District 22 Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Gilbert). “Chandler is a very conservative district. Warde Nichols came through a very nasty primary. A Democrat is not supposed to do that well.”

Sen. Tibshraeny, now in his third term in the Legislature, said both candidates ran strong races. He did not expect the Democrat to do as well as he did.

“People don’t realize there are a lot of independent voters in District 21,” Sen. Tibshraeny said. “It came as a surprise to a lot of people.”

Hettmansperger was ahead by hundreds of votes, but as the absentee and provisional votes have been counted, the gap has narrowed to eight. If this trend continues, Nichols will probably edge our Hettmansperger in this initial count. It remains to be seen whether the resulting tally will trigger an automatic recount, however.

Hayworth concedes (more or less).

A week after election day, JD Hayworth has issued the following press release more-or-less conceding the race to Harry Mitchell:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 14, 2006

Congressman J.D. Hayworth
Statement on continuing vote count

While there are still tens of thousands of votes left to count, it has become apparent that it is unlikely we’ll get enough of these votes to win the election. We were confident we would close the gap as the early ballots were counted, and we have, but at this point it doesn’t appear to be enough. Of course, if the result of the count changes, obviously I will abide by the will of the people.

Therefore let me congratulate Harry for his likely victory in what was a tough campaign and wish him the best of luck. I would also like to thank my supporters and the thousands of volunteers who devoted their time to my campaigns over the years. I would be remiss if I did not single out the incredible efforts of so many volunteers in this most recent campaign.

I also want to thank my hard-working staff both here in Washington and in the district – those who served in an official capacity and those who worked on the campaign.

One group – the group closest to me – never got time off during my 12 years in public office – my family. To my wife, Mary and our three children I say: Thanks for standing by me. Leaving the House isn’t so bad, since I get to come home.

But most of all, I would like to thank the people of Arizona I represented for over a decade. Thank you for the honor of serving in the Congress of the United States.

Paid for and authorized by J.D. Hayworth for Congress

From the East Valley Trib:

Results released on Tuesday showed Mitchell's margin over Hayworth had grown slightly over the previous day.

Mitchell had 92,648 votes, or 50.1 percent. Hayworth had 86,149, or 46.6 percent, while Libertarian Warren Severin captured 5,825 votes, or 3.1 percent.

...Maricopa County election officials said they hoped to finish counting the remaining 75,000 ballots by the end of the upcoming weekend.

The Mitchell campaign had no immediate comment late Tuesday afternoon.

Mitchell has continued to organize a congressional transition team as he spent a third day at an orientation session in Washington, D.C., for newly elected Democratic members of Congress.

Update: From the East Valley Tribune:

Mitchell was content to wait out the final vote count, he said about an hour before Hayworth conceded.

“The only one who could make the determination of who wins or not is the county recorder,” he said.

He felt confident about the outcome. Mitchell noted that his orientation book listed all the incoming House members.

“A couple of them, they listed with an asterisk, that their races were undecided yet. My name didn’t have an asterisk with it, so I felt pretty good,” Mitchell said.

In addition to other meetings, Mitchell met with presumed Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; his assigned mentor Rep. Adam Schiff, D- Calif; and other members of the Arizona delegation.

Mitchell, who was scheduled to have dinner with Pelosi and others, could not be reached after Hayworth’s concession.

On election night, Mitchell led 52 percent to 44 percent. On Tuesday, Mitchell led 50 percent to 47 percent.

Hours before Hayworth conceded, political analyst Bruce Merrill said it had become clear that Mitchell’s lead was going to hold. “It’s going to be very hard for J.D. to declare that (Mitchell) has lost it. It’s going to be very, very hard,” he said.

...Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, said the timing of a concession was Hayworth’s to make.

“He’s got to make up his own mind, but at a certain point, it becomes mathematically impossible to make up — and I think he’s right about at that point,” she said Tuesday at a luncheon at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa in Phoenix.

She noted however, that Hayworth had declared victory with far smaller vote margins in earlier elections. “I think consistency is not his best thing,” Napolitano said.

The importance of State Legislature races

Sometimes, it seems like only us political junkies and policy wonks are the ones interested in down-ballot campaigns. Take, for example, the State Legislature. I sometimes think a large number of Arizonans don't know or care what legislative district they live in or who is their state senator or representatives. For another large portion of citizens, it's only at election time that they become aware of who those people are and what they've been doing in office for the preceding two years.

Even so, most Arizonans see - on a daily basis - the effects of the legislative process even if they don't know the bills that have been passed or who has been responsible. They see school dropout rates and know that our educational system is lagging, even though they don't know which legislators have voted to de-fund public schools over the years. They see the growing illegal worker problem, but don't know which legislators have voted consistently to give a pass to employers who knowingly or negligently hire illegal workers.

It is, again, generally during the election season that these kind of issues come to the fore. Part of the campaigning process is to educate voters on how incumbents have voted and where they stand on issues. And another part of the process is for incumbents to place the best spin they can on their record, sadly even to the point of obfuscating or indicating quite the opposite of what their record shows. I've written a fair bit on that where Senator Huppenthal is concerned, for example.

I've also written about the unnecessarily polarizing behavior of the Republican majority in our state legislature and its impact on undermining sound legislative progress for our state. In looking back over the past four years, I shudder to think if we'd had a Republican Governor who would have just rubber-stamped what had come out of the lege.

Fortunately, we've narrowed the partisan gap in the State House, and our Governor has won a huge majority, giving her a mandate to govern. The East Valley Trib states it well:

Voters gave Napolitano a resounding victory but did not give Democrats control of either house in the Legislature. In fact, it appears the party might lose one seat in the Senate, although it gained House seats. That means the Legislature will remain heavily tilted in favor of the GOP.

Prior to the election, Republicans held such a large advantage in both houses that the party could pass measures without relying on a single vote from the opposition. In fact, the large majority led to what was known as the rule of 31 and 16 — the number of votes needed to pass a measure in the House and Senate respectively.

Then, the GOP held a 39-21 advantage in the House and an 18-12 edge in the Senate. With such a wide majority, Republicans could pass bills without any Democrats — and often did. GOP leaders said routinely they wanted to adopt Republican bills and a Republican budget and shut the Democrats out of the process.

Official results from last week’s election aren’t in yet, but it appears Democrats have narrowed the GOP’s advantage to 35-25 in the House. And with Republicans retaining an advantage in the Senate, just how much can Democrats accomplish?

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, R-Phoenix, said she will continue using a strategy that’s worked for many Democrats in the past: Finding a Republican to back certain measures. By doing that, she said, it’s easier to pass laws.

If that plan doesn’t work, Democrats still have the governor to back them up. “We’re still out-manned and we’re still out-gunned, but we still have the governor. And the governor wields a lot of power,” said Rep. Pete Rios, D-Springerville.

During her first term, Napolitano used her executive veto authority a record number of times — 116 by the end of last session — to reject GOP-led legislation. But last week, Napolitano and the Republican leaders pledged to work together during the upcoming session. At the same time, both sides were declaring mandates to push their agendas.

Fortunately, we have backed away from a veto-proof Republican majority in the House. And the Governor's mandate is quite clear. Hopefully, this will translate into a State lege that is more willing to be bipartisan and engage Democrats, rather than trying to shut them out of the legislative process.

If not, count on Governor Napolitano to keep her veto stamp well-inked, and rightly so.