Obama's speech on race

I would encourage everyone to read the speech in its entirety. This speech represents the most cogent example of why I chose to support Obama. He is calm, intelligent and real. He is not playing the normal political games that politicians play. I am proud of the way he handled this. I am proud to support him.

Here is the speech:

Mar. 18, 2008 "A More Perfect Union" Remarks of Sen. Barack Obama at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, March 18, 2008 (As prepared for delivery)
"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together -- unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, "Dreams From My Father," I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters ... And in that single note -- hope! -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories -- of survival, and freedom, and hope -- became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about ... memories that all people might study and cherish -- and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety -- the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it -- those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations -- those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances -- for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs -- to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds -- by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle -- as we did in the OJ trial -- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina -- or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation -- the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today -- a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Obama wins two more

Obama won another blowout in Wyoming and tonight a blowout in Mississippi. I am sure that the Clinton people think it doesn't matter. Tonight, Obama will regain the lead he had before Ohio and Texas.

Senator Hillary "Huckabee" Clinton of course will continue on even though she cannot win.

This is funny...

This might be the funniest thing I have seen this year... It is eerily true.

Clinton supporters lack class

How many quotes do we have to see from desperate Clinton supporters that show their utter lack of class. How about this one? (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan)

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," - Geraldine Ferraro, on an uppity senator.

Please allow me answer this question... If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position, he would already be the nominee.

Breaking: Mike Huckabee offers John McCain Vice Presidential spot

Sorry everybody, I got that wrong. It is really Hillary Clinton offering Barack Obama the Vice Presidential spot. You can see how I would make the mistake: Huckabee and Clinton are both candidates that are/were so far behind in the delegate count that they cannot win their party's nomination.

I apologize for the mistake...

Tax Returns

HRC won't release her tax returns and has no reason for it. I have had four years of secrecy, I don't want four more. You cannot claim to be vetted and not release relevant information. Release the tax returns and do it now!

Untenable

The latest news is that Michigan is likely to have a caucus for their do over election. The Clinton campaign says they will not accept a caucus (maybe in protest she should leave her name off the ballot. We can then allow people to vote for Obama and uncommitted and decide the winner that way :)). That leaves us with a dilemma.

Having a primary in Florida is estimated to cost between $14 to $18 million and I have heard anywhere from $8 to $12 million in Michigan. The only way we end this contest fairly and without taint is to have real contests in those states. This has to be resolved for the good of the party. Who will pay? The campaigns cannot afford it. The DNC cannot afford it.

I am personally agnostic about whether we have a caucus or primary. I think the nominee has to be able to win no matter the circumstances. The whining from the Clinton side about caucuses is farcical.

So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, I fear that the Clintons would prefer to not resolve this unless it means they get all of the delegates. This means they do not want a do over whether it is a caucus or primary. Even if there is a do-over, I expect that if Obama wins Michigan (which is more likely than Florida) that they will call the win illegitimate even if it is a primary.

If my friends on Clinton side cannot admit that the elections were illegitimate then they are being dishonest and petty. I can certainly admit that not seating delegations from the two states is wrong. I can also admit that it was not the fault of Florida Democrats that their Republican legislature moved their primary. So, what is the solution? (here is a hint it will never be acceptable to seat the delegations and give Hillary all of the delegates).

I have a friend...

I have a friend who will not stop bugging me about the Rezko case. She repeats it as though she has some sort of tick or mental disorder. It really bugs me because there is next to nothing there. In the interest of that and a bet I made (that the Clintons were likely tied to Rezko because he is a big Dem Contibutor). I found this online...

BTW -- That is the Rezko guy in the middle -- So suck it...

Clinton eeks out a pyrrhic victory

HRC won Ohio and it not looking good in Texas for Obama. What does it all mean? It means that she will stay in the race in spite of having no chance to win. Her "kitchen sink" strategy will likely turn more negative as she tries to find anyway to win.

What will her excuse be for losing Wyoming on Saturday? How about North Carolina? Mississippi? I am sure she will come up with one that her supporters will endlessly parrot. At the end of the day, she will go on to several more losses in the states that in her mind don't matter (because she cannot win them). My guess is that nothing will matter (unless she can win it) until Pennsylvania.

My contempt for the Clintons grows by the day. Obama's people must find a way to put her away...

Gary Gygax passed away...

I know this shows both my age and nerdiness, but Gary Gygax has died. It is a sad day for nerds everywhere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gygax

Hillary Clinton = Mike Huckabee

I know that many Clinton supporters will be angry with me for saying it, but Hillary Clinton has become the Mike Huckabee of the Democratic race. I am choosing to ignore the spin about Texas and Ohio mainly because I have reality and mathematics to rely upon.

Hillary cannot overcome Obama's delegate lead. He will likely win Texas outright or just win a majority of delegates. It is nearly mathematically impossible for her to catch up... But, like Huckabee's supporters they will claim that there is still a chance. After all, they majored in "miracles not mathematics", sorry but I did not. Here is one calculation of the math (there are others).

I know there have been all kinds of excuses and recriminations, but the reality of the contest is that it is about delegates. BTW -- Even if Obama loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, the "he has not won any big states" argument is not only stupid, but wrong. Just for the record, Missouri(11), Minnesota(10), Virginia(13), Georgia (15) and Illinois (21) are not small states (electoral votes). Of the 15 most populous states that have voted, ten in total (No Michigan and Florida are not included) Obama has won 5. If you count Michigan and Florida, that makes eleven and he has still won almost half, so spare me...

Furthermore, anyone that uses an excuse other than voter fraud for losing an election is by nature not only whiny, but really someone who does not understand the one truism of politics, winning is all that matters.

HRC can keep praying for miracles, but one is not coming. Maybe it is time she learned to play "Sweet Home Alabama" on the bass and started travelling with her own house band because she is already from Arkansas (and waiting on a miracle).

UPDATE: I thought this was interesting... Was the ad not effective?

UPDATE: Here is the big state math from DailyKos

2 voted but there was no campaign: MI and FL
5 haven't voted yet: TX, OH, PA, IN, and NC
5 have voted for Obama: IL, WA, MO, VA, and GA
and 5 have voted for Clinton: CA, NY, NJ, MA, and TN
The whole "Big State" thing is a myth.

Predictions

Vermont -- Obama +20
Ohio -- Clinton +5
Texas -- Obama <1
Rhode Island -- Clinton +5

Phil Gordon, crime stats and The Wire

Sorry this post is kind of inside baseball (and I mean inside my own head). I read this article in today's Arizona Republic about dropping crime rates and the strategies used to accomplish them.

Do any of you watch The Wire on HBO? I cannot help but see the parallels between our mayor and the fictional one in Baltimore. A big story line in the Wire is about "juking" the crime stats, the mayor that wants to be governor and chasing down a serial killer (a fictional one on The Wire, no actually fictional on the show). They even look alike:

If you are not already watching the show, it is too late the last episode is next week. I am so sad...

Steve Farley: Democrat's Lament Rockstar for a day

Rockstar


Steve Farley, Democratic Legislator from Tucson gets our first ever Rockstar for a day award. You might be asking yourself, what did Steve do to deserve this award? He took up a cause near and dear to my heart: State Shared Revenue. If you have been reading my blog for any period of time you know SSR is one my pet issues.

This article from the Arizona Republic outlines his efforts.

It is not enough to just take up a good cause, no to be RFD you must show panache and style. Farley is not only trying to protect SSR, but he is using the right-wing's own onerous and dumb policies against them, specifically the 2/3 majority rule for raising taxes in AZ.

So, to Rep. Farley, A Democrat's Lament thanks you for coming up with a legally sound and innovative way to stick it to Russell Pearce and keep the cities from making even bigger cuts, You are a Rockstar...

The restaurants are failing, the restaurants are failing, sound the alarm

I think I can be accurately described as a foodie. I love good food, wine, beer, coffee and cheese in particular. I spent several years in and around the restaurant industry. I ran across this article this morning from the Arizona Republic about how the restaurant industry is struggling.

One of my longtime pet issues is how waiters and waitresses are not even paid minimum wage. Which is why the quote below bugged me so much:

Meanwhile, a higher state minimum wage has pushed labor costs up rapidly. While relatively few workers made the minimum wage, employees who receive tips saw their guaranteed hourly wages climb from $2.15 an hour to $3.90 in just more than a year. Owners say this aspect of the law helps employees who already were doing well and cuts into restaurant profits.

I find it fascinating that an industry that has been able to keep a certain class of workers outside of the minimum wage system for years is complaining about $1.75 increase in pay. I have not waited tables for at least 15 years, but I was making $2.15+tips when I did. I don't know too many industries that get to keep their wages constant for more than a decade...

Does it really hurt so much when you add $80/week?

BTW -- Havana Cafe lady, I just wanted to let you know that I have only eaten in your restaurants once and it was one of the worst meals I have ever had. In fact, it was inedible. I know any place can have a bad night, but it was so bad that I could not bring myself to return.

I cannot stop picking on HRC

Thomas Watch: Facts be damned, Andy knows its all the fault of the immigrants

Where is my mustache?

I ran across this article this morning about the validity of the link between immigration and crime (or lack thereof).

Andrew Thomas (the douche), never one to let facts get in the way of his political ambitions, dismisses the idea that mere facts would change his behavior. Here is a fun quote from the article:

On Friday, Thomas informed the Republic that he had discussed the question sufficiently in the past and later issued a statement. "The link between crime and illegal immigration is well known and was recognized by the 78 percent of Arizonans who voted for Proposition 100 in 2006," it read

Of course, the voters are never wrong... (unless they disagree with Andy, like with the Gay Marriage amendment that failed last election that he now chairs).

Thomas Watch: Andy trying to rewrite history

I ran across this great article in the Phoenix New Times about Andy Thomas editing his wikipedia page. At first I thought this was snark, albeit funny nerd snark, but alas no. It does appear that a pretty good case can be made for Andy editing his own wikipedia page (and trying to cleanse all negative information).

Come on Andy, after the Matt Bandy case you should realize that you cannot easily hide your activities on a computer.

Good times...

You know what helps during an economic downturn? Raising tuition...

Here we go again... Now the Maricopa Community College system has decided to raise tuition. An article in today's Arizona Republic goes over the proposed details. A nine % increase in tuition in a time when more people are at an economic disadvantage is just stupid.

I have an idea Joe...

Dear Sherriff Joe Arpaio,

How about instead of cutting visiting hours for attorneys trying to provide Constitutionally mandated services, you quit sending your staff to Honduras for junkets? I know it will not cover the difference, but it is a start. Or you could sell that silly tank?

Simple question

It has occurred to me over the years that the coverage of the both the East Valley Tribune and New Times are generally better than the Arizona Republic.

The East Valley Tribune seems to cover as many stories as the Republic, but seems to cover them better. The New Times covers few topics, but with greater depth. I am basing my assertion on articles that fall within areas that I am knowledgeable.

Here is my question, why? OR why not?

Vote for Matt Santos

I knew there was a reason I like Barack Obama...

Why the mortgage crisis is good in the longterm

I have written about the sub-prime mortgage crisis a few times. It is a fairly complex issue that touches on a large number of economic issues. The press seems to be primarily worried about the losses of big banks and secondarily concerned about the impact on individuals. These are both big concerns that must be part of any policy put forward.

Here is my feeling, banks and investors must feel the pain, but we cannot allow it to kill them. I am not saying that no financial institution should fail over this issue, but we should move to limit the damage to protect the overall economy. I think it is dangerous to do a complete bailout because it incentivizes bad behavior, but too many failures would damage our ability to recover.


On the individual side, we must take much the same approach. People that purchased homes that they could not afford cannot be let off the hook, they must feel some economic pain for their risky behavior. Having said that, we are talking about people and not institutions. People feel real pain and we should try to help where we can. I think a system should be put in place to facilitate the refinancing of homes that still have a value somewhere approximating the loan. This means that we should not extend refinancing to a home where we would loaning more than the actual value of the home. I think the refinancing help should go first (and perhaps only) to people with demonstrable income. Given that there will be large number of people left out, we should take steps to ease the transition of people who will lose their homes to foreclosure. Furthermore, there should be a method for people to refinance based on fraudulent activities by mortgage brokers.

The object in my mind is to avoid catastrophic economic damage and ease the societal instability of this sort of transition. By instability I mean the hopelessness and anger that will be experienced by many caught up in the process. There are few things in life more traumatic than losing one's home and this should never be far from the minds of the policy makers.

After the crisis is over, we need to think through how to change the systems, so that home ownership is achievable, but not without income and effort.

So, what is the silver lining here? Home prices... I think the inflation of home prices was ultimately bad for us as a society. Although my home has lost thousands of dollars in value, I am heartened by the idea that hard working people in Arizona will still have affordable housing available. Affordable housing is good for our economy...

Why do Thomas and Arpaio keep spending RICO funds on crap?

When will the worm turn on these two?

Imagine if Barack Obama had done this...

I am trying to imagine the feigned outrage we would see from Hillary Clinton if Barack Obama had defended this guy. While I can see the value of a lawyer aggressively advocating for their client, I cannot fathom doing this.

I am really glad that Hillary is not the likely nominee. So much for being fully vetted...

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

I would like to given HRC the benefit of the doubt of this one, but it makes me a little ill.

Hillary manufactures outrage over this?

Here is the little love tap from Obama's Campaign against Hillary Clinton and this.

Here is her reaction:



This strikes me as the reaction of someone about to lose an election...

Thomas watch: Andy picks up another possible opponent

I ran across this article about another possible challenger to Andrew Thomas (the Douche). I think at this point I am willing to pony up the maximum contribution to anyone with a chance to beat him.

I don't know much about Tim Nelson other than he is a former council for the Governor. Here’s to hoping that Andy has pissed off the Governor enough for her to pull out the stops on fundraising.

Thomas Watch: Andy we cannot afford to keep you

After the big screw up with New Times, the aggrieved have decided to sue. They are suing Sheriff Joe Arpaio (DimeBag) and Andrew Thomas (the douche). They are willing to settle for a measly $15 million. With our current budget shortfalls and the large number of past and likely future court judgments against the dynamic duo, I think it is time we let them go back to whence they came...

Bimbo eruption: McCain style

The New York Times is reporting about a possible relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist. Apparently his staff was concerned enough to try to keep her away from him in 2000. The lobbyist who is a female 29 years younger than him was showing up frequently during his first run for the White House. An "inappropriate" relationship between the two was independently confirmed by two former staff members.

I for one don't care if he was cheating on his wife, that after all is the Republican's cross to bear, but if he was doing special favors for a lobbyist that he was sleeping with that will hurt him pretty badly.

Stay tuned...

Why I haven't posted anything recently.

I was supposed to have started writing for this blog regularly six weeks ago or so, but haven't done much else except comment on the presidential primary. So naturally, here is a list of reasons I haven't been writing anything:

1. Working, volunteering, or meaning to do either for for the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and the Fair Districts campaign.

2. Watching with fascination the Tempe City Council races, and trying to decide how to cast three votes for four people-- Mark Mitchell, Corey Woods, Joel Navarro, and Rhett Wilson.

3. Studying. Sorry, nothing to link to.

4. Anticipating the next round of discussion on Wactivist about the Shadegg/McCain/etc saga.

5. Wondering how the creator of A Democrat's Lament gets the time to write posts that are worth reading. Also, who he is.

I'm looking at hitting the blog alot harder soon though, the development plans for Jackson and the immigration debate in Phoenix haven't been talked about enough.

Teamsters to endorse Obama!

Obama's union endorsements are piling up, SEIU, UFCW and now the Teamsters. This is significant because these are three of the largest, most effective and fastest growning Unions in the United States.

Here are the largest as of 2003:

NEA - National Education Association 2,679,396
SEIU - Service Employees International Union 1,464,007
UFCW - United Food & Commercial Workers International Union 1,380,507
IBT - International Brotherhood of Teamsters 1,350,000
AFSCME - American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 1,350,000

Arizona's budget woes (and bone-headed Republicanism)

The Republicans in the Arizona Legislature never cease to amaze me. There is this article in today's Arizona Republic about their plan for balancing the budget. Once again, the Republicans in the leg are united in their opposition to borrowing money through bonds to pay for school construction.

I thought our Republican friends believed that government should operate like a business? In case you Republicans don't know (apparently very few of you have worked outside of government or a think-tank), businesses borrow money for capital expenditures. The only reason that I can think of for their position is that they are seeking to make cuts that they don't have to restore because they hate government. How about thinking about how to best to serve our state and put your simplistic and idiotic ideology down for a minute? BTW -- Cutting money from the Department of Economic Security during a recession is pretty dumb, even for our Republican legislature.

This is my favorite part of the article:

Still, the plans drew some comment from people concerned about its priorities.Jack Confer showed up to tell lawmakers that they're reaching too far with their proposal to take $1 million from the budget of the state Osteopathic Board. "We have less than what (you're) asking to take from us," Confer said, noting the agency as of Tuesday had $964,000 in its account.

Classic... You cannot cut more than the agency is allocated...

Why Texas will be interesting

Texas will be a particularly interesting race between Clinton and Obama. As someone who has worked in Texas, I can say that Texas is probably wide open for either candidate. The latest polling shows Obama closing the gap, but I think it is not important except to show momentum. However, all of the polls are of likely voters. Any pollster who thinks he has figured out likely voters in Texas is probably wrong.

Here is why: Texas has abysmally low voter participation. The last time I looked at state-wide numbers for TX their participation level was less than 30%. Given the low participation, polling likely voters (voters with a history of voting in primaries) probably gives very little indication of the final result. The potential pool of voters is huge.

I don't think this necessarily favors either candidate. I would not be surprised if the either candidate has a blowout victory. The winner will be the candidate with the best turnout operation.

Obama has another big win!

Obama won Wisconsin and won big! Hawaii was even bigger, making it 10 in a row. With every win the math gets harder for Hillary Clinton. For HRC to pull it out, she has have blowout wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. Texas is getting close... I think she will have to lose 2 out 3 for her to drop out. If she wins 2 out of 3, I think she continues on and starts all sorts of shenanigans to win at the convention.

The most unexpected part of this race for me is how HRC's campaign is so poorly run. I have to say that I did not expect that one bit. When this all started, I was not predisposed to HRC, but my one consolation if she got the nomination was that I thought she would have a very well campaign. I no longer believe that and I am starting to question her management skills. I am not trying to gloat, I am just surprised.

More on traffic cameras

There is this opinion piece in the Arizona Republic today imploring us "Quit the whining" about traffic cameras. It is funny that the argument that has been so effective at curtailing our freedoms as of late is the "if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about".

I must admit that this justification is neat and logical. It is also the slippery slope that police states are based. After all, if the government can justify using traffic cameras based on this argument, why not cameras on every street corner? Why not allow the government to monitor your communications? After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, why would you worry? I am sure it would be effective crime prevention (until someone like Sherriff Joe or Andrew Thomas uses the power to go after political opponents).

Freedom from scrutiny has value. I am a law abiding citizen, but I still do not want to be under surveillance. I would like to live my life free from government's prying eyes. This really comes down to the type of society that we want. I am not so fearful of crime or a car accident that I am willing to give up privacy or anonymity to get it.

Clinton goes negative (Don't get mad get even...)

No, I am not talking about the little love tap about the debates that she started running. This is full on attack ad. It is sad that it has come to this, but I would not expect anything less from HRC.

Having said all of that, Obama supporters suck it up... Politics ain't beanbag. If the Obama Campaign is as good as I think they are they will quickly turn this to their advantage. Don't get angry get even. You should channel you energy in making calls, donating money or becoming a volunteer.

Here is the Obama response to the first ad:

Obama's response to the latest Clinton attack ad:

Hypocrisy is such a lonely word part II

Many of you know that yesterday I wrote about Mark Penn (Clinton Strategist and union Buster extraordinaire) and his connection to Exelon, a nuclear power company. The Clinton Campaign has been very critical of Obama's ties to the company and particularly a piece of legislation that the Clinton Campaign claims show Obama to be a sell-out. So, you might ask what else is there to say about this story? Well as it turns out, not only did Mark Penn's firm work to help them renew their license in New Jersey, the very legislation they were criticizing Barack Obama for helping to pass was co-sponsored by.... wait for it... Yes, Hillary Clinton herself.

One of Hillary Clinton’s strongest arguments for giving her the nomination is that she is a tough campaigner. Her campaign lately seems more mismanaged and flat-footed than tough.

The full extent of Phoenix's financial mess (Thanks again Phil!)

I cannot help but think this pretty much fatally wounds Phil Gordon's political career. The extent of the financial mismanagement in Phoenix is pretty staggering. Here are more details from the Arizona Republic. The finances are really bad when they are proposing police and fire cuts (3%). This is truly unacceptable... My hope is that many of the new city council members will take a hard look at the financial strategies used in the city.

This is my piece of advice to new city council members and staff. Educate yourself about how the budget works. Read the document, consult with the League of Cities, seek outside advice and don't take the city staff's word as gospel (although they are usually right). You need to inquire and be tough about why and how the city got into this predicament. Was it a bad revenue forecast? Were the projections too rosy? Will the city continue to use the same forecasting metrics and methodology? Did city elected officials ignore the advice of the staff and the City Manager or follow it? Find out what the fund balance is currently (if any). What was the fund balance for the last five years? Where was the fund balance spent if it is gone? What is the unrestricted fund balance (now and the last five years)? What is the city's plan for dealing with a cut in State Shared Revenue (this almost always happens when the state is running a deficit) Order the Municipal Budget and Finance Manual (and read it).

Email me if you have questions... I will happily answer them off the record.

Hypocrisy is such a lonely word

I am not sure how many of you are aware of the Clinton Campaigns criticism of Obama's alleged ties to Exelon, but it has been an attack from Hillary for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately for Hillary she employs Mark Penn union buster extraordinaire and all around anti-progressive scumbag. His firm also happens to have taken $4.3 million for doing PR work from... wait for it.... Yes, Exelon energy.

I am not trying to make this into something bigger than it is, but it is a little funny. All of the feigned outrage that Hillary has about Exelon apparently does not extend to her top strategist (or his anti-union activity). I guess things like this only matter when they are aimed at Obama. It is similar to how all of the states that Obama won don't matter for some reason or another. I am not sure why the Clinton Campaign thinks that black voters, caucus goers, and educated Democrats don't matter, but hey there are a lot of things about the Clinton Campaign I don't understand.

You need to read this my Conservative friends (and Liberal ones)

If you have ever wondered why I am an advocate of free education through college, this is it in a nutshell. It’s the economy stupid!

A skilled workforce creates jobs. Education is an investment that is essential to a good economy. I always thought that the ranks of economists were filled with Conservatives. Why is that Conservatives seem to ignore the teachings of their brethren?

Our policies should be less about ideology and more about creating the kind of world we wish to live. Who wants to live in a world of perfect conservative ideology with a bad economy and an uneducated populace (or perfect Liberal ideology with the same problems)?

To my Liberal friends, the government does not create jobs. The government can set the table with education and a solid infrastructure, but the people bring the meal. The quote below should be a cause of concern for everyone that loves this country.

The economic benefits of a college degree are huge and growing, but the proportion of American high school graduates who enroll in college has been stalled since the early '90s. In fact, the rate of college participation for African American and Hispanic high school graduates has actually been falling.

Other countries around the globe are narrowing the income gap with the United States in large part because they're sending an increasing proportion of their young people to college and we're not.

This is precisely why Arizona should be providing more funding for education and universities and not less. The cost of tuition should be falling toward zero, not going up to reach the national average. This is even more true when there is a government funding problem. If workers can easily acquire new skills during a recession, it will be shorter lived.

Hey hey ho ho, photo radar has got to go

This is my Libertarian streak coming out again, but I really think that photo radar should be eliminated state-wide. Here is an article from the East Valley Tribune about some of our kookier legislators opposing the Governor's move to have photo radar statewide.

I don't agree with their criticism of the Janet Napolitano, but I would like the use of all red light cameras and photo radar to be put before the voters. I have a real problem with government surveillance of innocent citizens. I understand all of the safety arguments... A police state is a very safe place, but I still don't want to live in one.

Wake up Arizona. You live in the desert

Ethan Miller / Getty Images file

I don't have very much commentary to add to this, but when will our leaders and the people living in Arizona start taking this seriously? Do we want to end up like Georgia where they have a couple of weeks of water left and their governor's answer is to pray for rain?

We need to make environmentalism and conservation part of our economic growth model. Arizona should become the world center for solar power generation and research as well as the center for water efficiency and reclamation technology.

Obama wins Virginia!

This is not a small victory... Look at the exit polls. He was dominant. Split the white vote 50/50. There was still a gender gap, but it was 55/45 (HRC/Obama) this time. The only troubling result is her strength in Western VA (which is a lot like West Virginia and parts of rural Ohio).

The campaign rolls on... 6 wins in a row...

UPDATE: One other thing that is cool. With 10% reporting, Obama has more votes than the entire Republican field. Oh, and Hillary also has more votes than the Republican front-runner (Huckabee at the moment) by 10,000 votes.

Blog changes...

I have given into the requests to drop comment moderating. I have dropped the requirement, but now users have to register to leave comments. Just for the record, the only reason I moderated comments is because I wanted to read them all...

This is pretty cool...

City of Phoenix facing big cuts... (Good Job Phil)

Good job Phil... We just passed a tax increase to pay for more police and fire, but we are facing huge cuts in city services and staff. Here is the article. I cannot help but think that this is pure incompetence. The simple fact is that a growing city like Phoenix should never have staff cuts. The worst case scenario for a well run and growing city should be a hiring freeze. The reason for this is the need to keep a balanced ratio of residents to city employees (for trash pickup, road maintenance, police, fire, graffiti control etc). People will continue to move to Phoenix at the same rate, but now not only will the city not add new employees thus falling behind the demand for basic services, but they will compound the problem by eliminating positions.

I have spent a lot of time around municipal finances in Arizona and there is almost never a reason for these sorts of cut backs except mismanagement. The only cities that are really in danger are those that are built out (like Tempe or have structure funding problems like Mesa), but Tempe is not having the problem because of good planning by making sure revenue streams were built up while their state shared revenue declined. At one point, Tempe (I have not checked lately) held huge reserves collected during good times to get them through these types of downturns. What is your excuse Phoenix?

Phoenix’s state shared revenue will continue to grow. Leaders in Phoenix (or voters) have not made dumb structural decisions like Mesa (like not a having a property tax). One culprit that immediately comes to my mind are the huge give backs given to retailers (or this one) to get them to locate in the city. Here is the problem: Wal-Mart will move here regardless, stop giving them tax money.

This whole thing is frustrating and unacceptable. Note to the Mayor: Please run for John Shadegg's seat (as a Republican).

Here is more information on state shared revenue:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/briefs/Senate/STATE%20SHARED%20REVENUES.pdf
http://www.azleague.org/pdf/07shared_revenue.pdf

Shadegg out...

Apparently it sucks to be in the minority... Thanks George Bush!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0211shadegg-race0211-ON.html

Obama, the nomination and local coverage

I have been thinking a lot about what Obama has to do to win the nomination before the convention. This post from Kos crystallized my thinking on the subject: Obama needs to win all three contests tomorrow. After that, he must win 2 out of 3 of the following Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In addition to that, he must win a super majority of these contests Hawaii, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota. The other thing that must happen, he must win a majority of the popular vote.

I know that sounds unfair, but I think it is the reality. He must win such a convincing victory that super delegates will see the writing on the wall and even the Clintons will accept that they are beaten.

My last topic for the day is an apology about my lack of local coverage as of late. I put up two new local posts last night (yes, McCain counts as local). It is hard for a political junkie to not write about the presidential race even though there are many local issues that need coverage. I will do better, I promise.

Gun nuts

I don't get the gun nuts in the legislature nor do I get the gun lobby generally. Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about guns in restaurants. This seems to be the "gun in..." de jour at the moment. Previously, we had guns in churches, schools and airplanes.

Now before you NRA people start coming after me as some sort of Liberal who doesn't get gun culture. I own a gun. I learned to shoot when I was nine. I grew up hunting deer and in the home of a gun collecting lifetime NRA member. BTW -- He resended his membership when they started with all of the scare tactics about "jack booted thugs" and what not.

Here is the thing that was instilled in me from the very beginning. When it comes to guns, safety comes first. It is not safe to mix alcohol and guns. Most of all you don't put other people in danger because of your behavior. If in doubt, you don't need it.

My problem is this... If a police officer or someone from the military (with proper training) wanted to bring a gun into a bar or restaurant, I could probably live with that. The problem, like it or not is that a very large number of the people who own guns do not use proper safety nor have they been properly trained. They are in a word, dangerous...

Why Republicans hate McCain (think Lieberman)

I had a really interesting conversation with a Republican friend of mine about John McCain. He was positively dismayed that McCain was headed toward the nomination. I am not a fan of McCain for a variety of reasons, primarily because he is just a plain old conservative. There is very little about him that is maverick, unless you count the high level of regular press access on his bus.

What was his answer: Why do you hate Lieberman? His answer put it all into perspective for me. Republicans see McCain as a guy that gives us cover. He may not break with his party very often, but when he does, it gets in their craw as much for what he does as well as the self-righteous way he does it. I would guess Lieberman votes with the Dems as often as the McCain does with Republicans.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, the next time one of your Republican friends is railing against their nominee, have sympathy. Just imagine if Joementum himself was our nominee. Instead, we get to choose between two candidates who represent us pretty well (even if Obama is better).

Update: Lieberman is way more annoying than McCain

This might be the weirdest thing I have ever seen...

I don't even know what to say about this... Just read it.

Obama does better than expected (Cali still out)

I am impressed by the number of states won by Obama. He basically won in every region with both big and small states. California does not look that great so far, but other than that I am happy with the results. Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota, southern states (Alabama and Georgia) are the most impressive. What is also striking is the large margin for Obama in many of the smaller states.

With the large margins in many states Obama could come out on top in delegates or keep it very close to offset California.

This is clearly the most interesting primary in my lifetime...

Update:

I also wanted to add a couple of things on the Republican side. One, Huckabee did incredibly well considering he has no money and is not an establishment candidate. I have mentioned this a few times, but do not underestimate Ed Rollins. He has done an excellent job for Huckabee. Second, John McCain only won 47% of Republicans in Arizona. Does this mean that Arizona could be in play even if McCain is the nominee? Look at the margins for HRC, Obama and Huckabee in their home states, they had blowouts. Saint McCain, not so much...

Vote for Obama!

I hope everyone will vote for Barack Obama today in Arizona.

Yes, we can! Si, Se puede!

35 years of experience (or 35 years of truthiness)

I would normally let something like this go, but it has been repeated numerous times by the Clinton campaign and her supporters. We all know that campaigns can be full of truthiness. What bothers me about this is that many of the same people who are parroting this talking point have never looked into it. This is not my version of the truth as an Obama supporter mind you, but the actual truth. First, 35 years ago she was finishing law school. These two quotes are key for me:

As a corporate attorney
She also served on corporate boards, including that of retail giant Wal-Mart from 1986-1992, frozen yogurt purveyor TCBY from 1985-1992 and cement manufacturer LaFarge from 1990-1992. She earned tens of thousands of dollars in fees from each. Clinton's firm represented Wal-Mart and TCBY while she sat on their boards, a cozy practice that corporate governance experts frown upon because of the potential for conflicts of interest.

Public Service
Clinton did a great deal of public service work during her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. She served on the board of the Legal Services Corp. during the Carter administration and for a time was its chair. She helped found a child advocacy system in Arkansas and took on several tasks as the state's first lady, such as revisions of the state's education system and rural health care delivery. She also served on the board of directors of the Children's Defense Fund, and on the board of a children's hospital.

I actually don't have a problem with her spending time as a corporate lawyer. I just have a problem with the truthy claim that she has spent her life in public service. She has spent a lot of time in public service, but equal amounts in the private sector as a lawyer or serving on corporate boards.

Once again it is not a bad thing, but the campaign is not truthful about it. Here is more detailed information about it or here. Here is the Clinton campaign's take. This is precisely the problem I have with the Clintons. Instead of twisting the truth, how about claiming both public and private experience? It might be useful for a president to know something about corporate law or corporate governance. I actually think her accomplishments are impressive.

The problem is that the Clintons seem to have an almost pathological compulsion to bend and stretch the truth beyond recognition and often to their detriment for almost no gain. The Obama people are a lot nicer than I am... If I was running his campaign, I think I would mention everyday that she spent about the same amount of time on the board of Wal-Mart as the US Senate.

At any rate, I hope everyone in Arizona is voting tomorrow. If there is one thing most of us can agree upon, it is that we don't want John McCain as President. Happy voting...

Lightrail set for completion

I for one am excited about the completion of the light rail. I do not drive very much, but I really want to use it when I can. The Arizona Republic has this article about the schedule for completion. I have written about his before, but I don't really understand the opposition to the whole project. From what I can see, the light rail seems to be a good balance of size, scope and planning. It seems big enough to be useful, but not big to cost too much and become a major boondoggle.

I wish people would be a little more open minded about the whole thing. I don't think we can continue to grow through building highways. This is a good start, lets hope it works well for everyone's sake...

Request your ballot!

Today at 5:00PM is the deadline to request an early mail ballot. Do your civic duty and vote in the Arizona Presidential Preference Primary. While you are there sign-up for the permanent early voting list. Maricopa County makes requesting a ballot really easy.

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/web/elections.aspx

Government egregiously seizes private property

Once again the government is using its coercive power to steal from hard working individuals everywhere. Here is the article from the Arizona Republic. Clearly there are Socialists in our midst. After all taking 1 cent for every $10 spent to build parks is just theft. Why not privatize all of the parks and let the market take care of this? I was planning on using my .001 to buy a weeks worth of starbucks this year or pay my dues to the Minute Men.

If this Ahwatukee woman wants more little league fields then she needs to figure out how to make little league profitable. Look at professional baseball, they would never ask tax payers to pay for a stadium.

Ok, seriously. These ballot elections are important and no one votes in them except me. The thoughts above are from the brain of an anti-tax zealot (or at least what I imagine an anti-tax zealot might think) right before they vote to kill this park funding. They see tax on the ballot and they reflexively vote against it. The election will be on May 20th. Please mark it on your calendar and vote. Do not let this slip by and be defeated. After all, parks are nice and improve our quality of life.

Questions to ask before you vote

I can tell you how I made my decision to vote for Obama. I asked myself the following questions:
1. Who would I be most proud to have representing myself and my party?
2. Which candidate would be willing to take hard positions and do the right thing even when it is unpopular?
3. Which candidate can best heal the rift that exists in our country and calm the all out political war?
4. Which candidate can best withstand the coming Republican onslaught?
5. Who will build the best organization?
6. Which candidate will pursue a 50-state strategy and expand the presidential playing field?
7. X-factors: likability, etc

Here are my answers:
1. This was easy Barack Obama is easy to be inspired by. He represents a generational shift away from the baby-boomer culture war. He gives us chance to make a fresh start (thanks George Bush for destroying your party this cycle). WINNER: Obama
2. I worry about all of the candidates on this one. Obama has been very careful in the Senate. I have been disappointed that they all voted to fund Iraq. Edwards has disappointing votes, most of which he has apologized for. Hillary is pretty much the same. WINNER: Three way tie
3. This one is easy, Obama. I think Edwards has the potential to improve things, but Hillary will certainly unite the Republicans and make things worse. WINNER: Obama
4. This is a tough one. Edwards made some early blunders that gave me pause. I also saw him in person being grilled by Arizona press and found it uninspiring. Obama is being tested by the Clintons in a major way and so far I think he is holding up well. Hillary has a good operation and can mix it up with the Republicans. Winner: Hillary
5. This is a tough one. I think Hillary and Obama would both build good organizations, but I give this one to Obama. I think he will plug into the DNC organization more readily and Clinton will build her own. Obama has a proven ability to bring in small donors and I think this important. Winner: Obama
6. I don’t think that Hillary will work to expand the presidential field because she won’t be able to. Obama has the greatest potential in this area, especially in Southern states with large African-American populations. Edwards also has potential here, but it worries me that he did not win North Carolina in 2004. Winner: Obama.
7. The truth is I just like Obama better as a person. I like Edwards and would be happy with him(Voted for him in the 2004 primary). I don’t really like Hillary. Her voice annoys me and she yells a lot during debates (I know that is not a good reason, but it is what it is). At this point, I don't think Edwards can win the nomination. Winner: Obama

Dumb people should not be allowed to make tax plans

Why is it that only dumb and short-sighted people seem to float initiatives about taxes? The East Valley Tribune has this article about eliminating the income tax in Arizona. The myopia that pervades the right-wing anti-tax crowd is staggering.

I get it guys, you don't like taxes. I don't like taxes either. I also do not like going to the dentist or painting my house when the paint is peeling or fixing my roof when it is leaking. I would like all of those things to magically fix themselves for free.

Government has to do things. It needs to provide law enforcement, roads, parks, sewage, water, schools, courts etc. All of these things cost money. The government needs sufficient and stable funding to operate. I for one do not trust right-wing ideologues to determine whether a sales tax will provide enough funding to do what needs to be done.

The unintended consequences of these sorts of policies can be pretty harsh. I am being self-interested here (I pay property taxes, income taxes, car taxes, sales taxes etc). Anyone who has lived in a state without an income tax have seen how the state insures its funding. In California they passed Prop 13 for property taxes, now they have a very uneven system of property taxation. If you are a new home owner, you get stuck with much higher property taxes (and all manner of fees) to make up for the others with low taxes. It is similar to rent control. You also pay higher prices for car tags and almost everything else. In Florida, property taxes are sky-high because they don't have Prop 13 or income taxes. In fact, there are fees everywhere when you deal with the government.

What I almost never see is an analysis of the consequences of something like prop 13. What is the affect on the housing market when a new house pays double the taxes as the house next door? Does it affect the fungibility of property? Does it keep newer home owners out of the market? Does it drive higher foreclosure rates? Will a sales tax only system provide sufficient revenue? Will people seek loopholes out of self-interest with property and sales taxes?

The first problem that I think of with a sales tax only system besides its regressive nature for food and other necessities, are online sales. If you increase sales taxes you will incentivize buying online to avoid taxes. For instance when I bought my wife's engagement ring, I purchased it online. Not only were the prices lower and the quality better, but I got a 6% discount because of no sales tax being charged. If you significantly raise sales tax the incentive to buy online goes up significantly.

My only point here is that when it comes to taxes, I wish that the right could have an adult conversation about providing necessary services and the unintended consequences of changes. You anti-tax folks must realize that just because something sounds good does not mean that it is good.

The Clinton Campaign's shameful behavior (and why it is good)

If you like any other candidate besides HRC (or if you are an HRC supporter who is honest with yourself), you cannot help but be a little embarrassed and troubled by the Clintons' behavior. Bill Clinton in particular is increasingly embarrassing. His conduct is unbecoming a former president. I think the spectacle over the last few weeks shows President Clinton's problems with holding and acquiring power at any cost and with impulse control. I have grown weary of their excuses for losing (in Iowa), attempts to disenfranchise voters and efforts to constantly take on the roll of victim.

I grow weary at the thought of 4 or 8 years of impending "bimbo eruptions" and the subsequent lost opportunities that will accompany them. I would rather spend my time defending policies than a dirty old man's lack of impulse control. I find myself less able by the day to bear the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton. If McCain is the nominee, I doubt I would bother voting for president (I am not voting for McCain, lets not get crazy here). If Arizona was a true swing state, I would probably hold my nose, try to keep down my lunch and vote for her.


As you can tell, I am not happy with the Clintons these days. Here is why I think their behavior could ultimately be good. If Obama is the nominee, he will prepared for the Republicans. The Clinton tactics and Rovian tactics have converged.


For all of the fighting between the candidates and their surrogates, the simple fact is that the Clinton Campaign is running a better race on a mechanical level. They are finding their supporters and turning them out. If the Obama Campaign, cannot match this intensity, he does not deserve to win.

Thomas Watch: Recall him!

We found out today from the Arizona Republic how County Attorney Andrew Thomas paid for his tax-payer sponsored campaign materials. He used money from the general fund of his office (instead of you know, prosecuting people) and from RICO funds (you know, money to fight organized crime and gangs). Great job Andy! I am sure your brochure will help with our burgeoning gang problems.

We have to either recall or defeat this douche bag!

Nevada caucus

I am not sure I believe any of the polls I have seen for Nevada. I am pretty familiar with the politics in Nevada. The Culinary Union (UNITE HERE nationally) is pretty influential in Nevada (although, some would argue that their influence is on the wane). They are know for the strength of their membership. SEIU in Nevada is a pretty strong healthcare and public workers local.

I have talked about this before but endorsements don't mean much if they do not come with resources. If Culinary and SEIU come with a lot of resources, it could really help Obama. Given the transitory nature of Nevada, I think they could have more influence than normal.

I expect Obama to perform well, but there is also a lot of Edwards support among the unions. The real question will be the overall turnout. If turnout is low, I think Clinton is toast. I think Clinton does well if turnout is moderate. I think high turnout helps Obama. There is also the X factor of the lawsuit. It may anger and harden the support of the Culinary membership. Then again, who knows.

UPDATE:
I ran across this poll which shows Clinton with a sizable lead. I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that she could have a 9-point lead. Mason-Dixon is the polling outfit and they are some of the best pollsters in the country. Not only that, but the demographics seem to make sense. Hillary has a large lead among older women and Hispanics. The real question is how the hispanic vote is affected by the union endorsements. I suspect turnout will be low enough that strong union turnout could shift that demographic. This is especially true given the high Hispanic density in the unions. There is also a big problem in determining likely caucus goers.

Common sense, the rule of law and poker

There is this interesting article in the Arizona Republic about a retired former justice of the peace who is running poker room. I thought this was too interesting to not write about.

I am truly conflicted and trying to be consistent in my beliefs. On one hand, I love poker. I have friends over to play poker for money (gambling, gasp...). On the other hand, I am a believer in the rule of law. If the law is wrong it should be challenged in court or changed. We cannot pick and choose the laws that we want to recognize.

Here is the problem that I see, what do we do as a civil society when large groups of people ignore a law? Laws on gambling are largely ignored. The size of the operation is the only real factor here. I am tempted to say that gambling causes no harm, but I suspect with a small group of people is does cause harm. Gambling is not victimless, but it is pretty close. So, how is gambling different than something like speeding?

I guess the difference that I see is that almost no one is prosecuted for gambling in their home (poker, betting on sports etc.) While many people are prosecuted for speeding. I actually think that most people follow the speed limit (give or take a few mph). I also think that the government has a pretty compelling interest in regulating the speed limit because of traffic deaths (I don't want me or my family to be killed by some jackass driving too fast for his ability.)But maybe I am just trying to justify my own activity (my objectivity is thin here).

Here is what I would recommend: Why not make poker like home brewed beer? In most states, you can brew a certain amount of beer in your home legally. BTW, this was considered boot-legging before the laws were changed. The laws are simple enough. You can brew a certain volume of beer every year, but you cannot sell it. How about allowing small not for profit poker and card rooms that can only make so much money per year or limit the stakes? You can limit their size and just let them be...

The two most important people in Arizona's budget battle (it's not the Gov or a legislator)

The East Valley Tribune has this fascinating insight into how economic forecasts are created for the state. There are two economists, one at ASU and one at UofA, that provide econometric forecasts for the state and this year their forecasts differ greatly.

I actually find it heartening that there are two guys who worry about the specifics of the economy and seem relatively non-political. This is why having great education intuitions is so important and why we should give more respect to intellectualism. It also more than a little ironic that these guys could cause the funding of their respective universities to be cut. To me this illustrates the importance of tenure (an economist would see an incentive to fudge the forecasts).

The politicians can fight their political fights (and they will), but without Marshall Vest and Dennis Hoffman, to provide the information, they would not even be able to discuss the future. Thanks guys!

Thomas Watch: Petite Bush de Maricopa

I guess it just goes to show that just like kids emulate their parents behavior, local political officials mimic the behavior of national officials. Andrew "the douche" Thomas is being secretive about his use of tax-payer funds to pay for a pamphlet (aka - campaign flyer). The Arizona Republic is reporting that he is refusing to tell anyone how much it costs.

I find it amazing that a public official who is supposed to enforce the laws can be this dense. I understand he wants to be reelected, but does he really think these billboards and pamphlets will help? He probably could have cruised to victory if would stop being such a nut. When did the Republican Party become the party of absconding with tax-payers funds for campaigning and secrecy? I thought you guys learned your lesson after Nixon.

Frankly, I find the authoritarian impulse of the modern Republican Party a little scary.

Robert Rob: It's hard out there for a relic

Our good friend Robert Robb from the Arizona Republic once again has taken to criticizing our Governor. I don't have a problem with criticism per se. I think it is a good thing. I just feel sorry for poor Robb and his utter lack of understanding of how the government works (poor guy has to write a column about something he is struggling to understand. It must hard for him.).

Robb accuses our fine Governor of missing the point on education and of being an incrementalist(it is a big word for him. I bet used his thesaurus). He takes her to task for not fixing the various indicators that remain unchanged since she took office. The problem is that he forgot that all of the legislation passed in Arizona is passed the Legislature (I know it is hard to believe. I used to think the Governor could just make up legislation too, but surprisingly, no. ). Mr. Rob it makes me very happy to let you know that your own party controls the Legislature.

Mr. Robb now that you know the Legislature is controlled by your party you should open that Rolodex of yours and start calling all of your buddies at the capital. I bet you could use your influence to pass all of the educational reforms you want. Come on, help the Governor fix all of those indicators.

I don't mean to pick on Hillary (ok, maybe a little)

This is hilarious...

Janet Rocks!

I know I have had my problems with the Governor over the years, but it only because of her limitless potential (seriously). This article from the Arizona Daily Star covers her state of the state speech. While the Republicans in the Leg fight over which educational or health care program for the poor to cut first, she has recommended free tuition for good students (albeit in the future), freezing tuition for four years for the incoming freshman class and extending healtcare coverage for kids until 25.

This is exactly what our state needs, she gets it. Kudos to Janet...

Why I like Obama...

This is why I like Obama.

UPDATE:
And this brings my anger towards Hillary down a notch

This is exactly right...

I ran across this on Andrew Sullivan's blog. This is exactly the response that the Obama Campaign should give to the Clinton attacks. Playing Clinton's game does not help Obama, he must pivot and change the tone.

This has to stop... (Andrew Thomas can't help himself)

When will Andy "the douche" Thomas ever learn? This is just not right (From the East Valley Tribune). It was not right when Janet Napolitano did it and it is not right now (although Janet's billboards were pretty pedestrian in comparison). Stop using tax money for political purposes!

Ray Caroll bends space and does something Democrats don't hate

A Republican finally forces an end to a year’s worth of arguing among Democrats

Republican Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll forced three Democratic colleagues last week to do what their party and its lawyer couldn’t accomplish in a year of arguing and court challenges.

Supervisors Richard Elías, Sharon Bronson and Ramón Valadez voted to obey a court order to open county records to ensure ballots were counted accurately in 2006 and will be correct for this year’s primary and general elections.

Thanks to Carroll, we’ll either learn those elections were counted honestly, even if procedures were sloppy ... or that one or more rogue employees of the county’s Elections Division actually changed some vote results.

Clinton's friends are troubling

Hillary has a lot troubling advisors around her. Her chief strategist is anti-union, for instance. I find her judgement to be troubling.

Then there is this... (and this)

Here are my favorite snippets about her most recent attack dog:

Johnson served on President George Bush's commission on privatizing social security. In January 2005, he convened a summit whose stated purpose was to raise and answer questions about the African American community's political affiliations, but whose true design, critics claim, was to peal black voters away from the Democratic Party.He has repeatedly called for the repeal of the estate tax, saying that the policy is propagated by "a liberal, noblesse oblige attitude that they have probably had in their families for generations."

I think that speaks for itself...

A Democrat's Lament Arizona Straw Poll

Look to the right for the Arizona Straw Poll Democrat's Lament style. Please choose the candidate that you are most likely to vote for in the Arizona Presidential Preference Primary on Feb 5th.

I have eliminated undecided to push leaners and sorry no Kucinich.

Our Republican Legislature: Dare to be stupid

I have to say that I really don't understand the Republicans in the legislature. I know that they think government is the root of all evil and they want to eliminate it, but they also seem to want to bankrupt it along the way. These two articles 1 and 2 from the East Valley Tribune show how short-sighted they really are.

On one hand they want to cut education and health care spending for the poor during an economic slow down. As the governor rightly points out, people need more educational opportunities and health care spending during a down turn.

This goes back to my seemingly Sisyphean argument that education should be as constitutionally mandated as nearly free as possible. When education is cheap people can retool easier during an economic downturn. This makes for a more flexible and vibrant economy. I can imagine a person who works in construction (and is finding less work) wanting to go to school to become a computer programmer, a project manager or even get a construction management degree. It should be as painless as possible to do this because in the end it benefits everyone. People taking advantage of educational opportunities will consume less public resources over the long-term because of increased income. They will pay more in taxes to offset the increased educational spending and their increased buying power will stimulate the local economy. Not only that, but a highly educated work force draws new industry to Arizona.

The other article addresses the Republican insistence that we make a tax cut permanent when we are running a deficit. I know it is wishful thinking given recent batch of Conservatives, but they used to value fiscal responsibility as one the primary pillars their philosophy. What happened? First, the tax will not be reinstated until 2010, so what is the rush? When we are running a huge deficit that is likely to run into 2009 (and get bigger), why would you even be concerned with this now? How about this, lets deal with this next session before the tax is reinstated? Lets wait and see how things look next year...

I have to say that the Republicans almost seem determined to relegate themselves to minority status.

My theory on the Obama loss

As I have read the various news sources and analysis of the aftermath, I have formed a theory. I think Obama did not have a particularly good operation in New Hampshire and Clinton did... Iowa was different because Obama picked up the guy who won Iowa for Kerry (Steve Hildebrand)

My theory is based on this from Wactivist. Matt Rodriguez ran Jim Pederson campaign for US Senate from Arizona for a while. His time working for Pederson was an unmitigated disaster. While he was at the helm, it was one of the best funded and worst run operations I have ever seen. He was also running New Hampshire for Obama.

The other piece of the theory comes from Andrew Sullivan. The exit polling suggests that Clinton had things wrapped up for a while. Some of the events leading up to the election might have added a few people and/or it may have hardened the resolve of her people.

To me this adds up to a badly run operation against a well run operation with solid support. I can tell you from first hand experience that a well run field operation in a low turnout election (this was high turnout for a primary, but low-turnout overall) can turn results on their head. I have run field programs where polls showed my candidate losing by 15 points only to win by double digits.

The final piece is speculation on my part, but I also think that many Independents decided to vote for McCain over Obama because they though he had it wrapped up. You don't have to have big numbers for it to make a huge difference. A bad operation can cost you a percentage point or two, late breaking events cost a point or two and you lose a couple percentage points among Independents because their sense of urgency wanes, that could easily explain the loss. The converse of this along with second choice voting could easily explain the surprise win in Iowa.

Why I think John McCain will fade

New Hampshire was a big victory for the McCain Campaign. However, after Michigan I don't see a lot of possibilities for McCain. Here is why: McCain won based on Independent voters. I was looking through the exit polls. First McCain did not win among voters who approve of President Bush, i.e. base Republicans. Romney, although narrowly, won Republicans. Romney won among Conservatives. McCain's appeal among Independents makes him tougher in the general, but the Republicans still don't like him. Having said that, I cannot see who will win on the Republican side.

I worry about this with Obama as well...

Live Blogging New Hampshire

Just in case I forgot to say it, congratulations to the Clinton Campaign. Job well done!

Live Blogging New Hampshire

As much as I hate to admit it, Hillary's win is probably good for the race. I would have liked to see Obama walk away because I am so hungry for a different type of politics. Having said that, I don't think it will be bad if Obama gets more seasoning and Hillary becomes more humanized. As both campaigns become better in the primary, they will have a better team for the general. I am glad we are avoiding the bad model setup in 2004 where John Kerry flew out of Iowa and ran the table. He turned out to be a great man, but a bad candidate. It is important for us to pick the best and strongest candidate.

I am still 100% behind Obama and I think he is by far the best candidate. On to South Carolina...

Live Blogging New Hampshire

Interestingly, the Democratic Party primary took about 57% of the vote with 38% reporting. Once again this bodes well for us...

Live Blogging New Hampshire

Did a sizable group of independents decide to vote for McCain because Obama looked headed for victory? Maybe just painful and disappointed speculation...

The polls were way off...

Live Blogging New Hampshire

Boy does the press love John McCain. I am not sure his win does anything more than keep him alive. This opens the race wide open on the Republican side. My question is given the Republican base's distrust of the media does the media love in help him or hurt him?

They sure want to anoint Saint McCain the nominee...

Live blogging New Hampshire

Clinton is ahead by four and it not looking good for Obama. I don't know what part of the state is coming in. At this point, I think Obama could still win, but he is unlikely to win by the percentage I predicted.

If Clinton wins this, this race blows wide open...

Predictions for New Hampshire

This is a total guess because I have not been following the polling that closely, but I think Obama will win by 14 and McCain by 5.

Time will tell...

UPDATE:

I am crappy prognosticator when my heart is in it...

Polls make me go ARG, or, someone else did this work and I'm talking about it now.

So it turns out, yes, there is a problem when polling companies do not include cell phones, as I talked about in my last (and first) post on A Democrat's Lament.

As it's explained much better here, at least one polling company-American Research Group, or ARG- did not poll cell phones because, apparently, young people don't vote. Well, as Tony Cani said over on wactivist, young voters in Iowa turned out so much that they represented a higher proportion of votes than they represent amongst the electorate.

Not only that, but the head of that polling org actually turns out to be kind of a dick, and now it looks like the editors on Wikipedia have removed most references to American Research Group in articles dealing with political polls.

The article I linked to above will give you a much better idea of the whole thing.

Note to independent voters: Love ya but you cannot vote in my primary

There has been a lot of talk lately about allowing voters to cross party lines (or not even be a member of a party) and vote in a partisan primary. The latest is here from the Tucson Citizen. Just to give you a quick overview: Sentor Bill Harper wants to give Independents and Republicans the right to vote in any primary (but not Democrats). I am not worried so much about his inconsistance and favoritism towards Republicans because frankly it is a non-starter as long as Janet is governor.

Here is the question I pose: Why is it wrong for a political party to have a partisan primary to choose that party's representative? There is an easier and better solution to this problem. Allow voters to switch their party registration. Oh, wait they can already do that... Ok, how about letting voters register and change their party registration of Election Day? I know what you are thinking, but that would just solve the problem, allow for greater participation and not allow for the Republicans in the legislature to make a bone-headed decision. But wait wouldn't that open up our elections to fraud because all of those "illegals" waiting to vote in every election (at least according to the Prop 200/nativist crowd and they couldn't be wrong?) would register on Election Day and vote for the Aztlán Peoples Party candidate.

Seriously, if you want to vote in a partisan primary, just register as a member of that party and your problem is solved. If you don't like political parties, sorry you only get to vote in the general election.

Note the Prop 200/nativist crowd: Most immigrants are too busy cleaning up your yard, cooking your meals, cleaning your homes, building that extension on your house, taking care of your kids and generally working too hard for too little money to vote.

What word(s) best describes the Republicans in the Arizona Leg?

Dumb, thick-headed, tin-eared, short-sighted, politically inept, dim witted, impaired, intellectually challenged, dense, num-skulled and thick are just a few that quickly come to my mind. Seriously, what world do these guys come from?

There was this article from the East Valley Tribune about the recommended budget cuts by Republican controlled chairmen of the appropriations committees in the Arizona Legislature. Here is list:

The proposal also would make major -- and permanent -- cuts in funding for state universities, suspend funding for new land and buildings for community colleges and eliminate the state's general assistance program.

Other cuts suggested by the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees include:

-- eliminating a new initiative to help teach math and science.

--rolling back an extra $15.3 million that lawmakers gave to public schools above
what a formula requires them to provide.

-- reducing eligibility for a program that provides health insurance for the children of the working poor.

If you get beyond how bad these cuts are for a growing state and how morally bankrupt it is to preserve tax-cuts while cutting health care for poor children, how politically dumb can one be?

If I could pick a group of items to run against in a political campaign the list above would be a dream. The only problem that I can see is that the list is so dumb that is almost hard believe.

Seriously, you cannot find better cuts than education and child health care? Wow...

Worldwide hops shortage: Where does your presidential candidate stand?

This article from the Arizona Republic sheds light on a dire problem facing both Arizona and the World... For those of you that don't know, hops is an essential ingredient to the mothers milk that makes our society turn, beer.


Sure there are crisises around the world, but is there anything bigger than this. In fact, if there is any connection between the draught, excessive rain affecting hop production and global warming, it (Global Warming) must be fixed immediately. What is more important beer or cars, obviously beer. In fact if the free market system is the cause of this shortage, it to must be abolished. Above all the availability of IPAs must be ensured... After all the only real reason to have cars or a free market is to transport beer and its ingredients and provide a monetary means of acquiring beer.

If a society cannot provide cheap and high quality beer can it really be considered civilized? Rise up beer drinkers of the world...

If any campaign wants to pick up the venerable endorsement of this site (we currently endorse Obama) you need a strong position on the looming hops crisis. (I am talking to you HRC you need a boost at the moment...)


PS -- This entry is intended to only partially be humorous. Seriously, I want my IPA.

OBAMA WINS!!!!

I have been supporting Obama for a while now and I am overjoyed to see him win in Iowa. I was a Dean supporter in 2004 it was a hard night. Winning feels better...

I have to say that we have really good candidates in Hillary, Obama and Edwards. On to New Hampshire... Now I guess I have to get off my butt and volunteer some time at the Obama headquarters in Arizona.