Archive for the ‘election’ Category

An Email to Sean Hannity

Monday, February 12th, 2007

I got another fund-raising letter from another arm of the NRSC. This one comes right out of C.S. Lewis and reflects a level of cluelessness that would be hilarious if not so pathetic. A bunch of legislators who had their heads handed them by the American electorate last November, who were firmly placed in the minority for being out of touch with the people, have a fund-raising gimmick, a club they continue to call “Republican Senatorial Inner Circle.” And they claim Sean Hannity will be their big speaker this Spring. Nice. The following is what I sent to Mr. Hannity today. I’m hoping it was an old agreement, pre-Warner Retreatican resolution. I’ll post any response I get, hopefully good news.

———
Sean, I was very happy to hear you vowing to call out any Senator or Congressman who votes against the troops and victory. Great to hear you advocate primary challengers to RINOs.
But then I got home and saw you listed as the single big-name headliner on a high-dollar fund-raiser for the NSRC. You know that Senator Ensign has been asked and refused point-blank to cut off funding of any Senator who votes against victory. So did this go out without your approval or are you playing a two faced game of posturing for the people while ingratiating yourself to the powerful? You need to immediately get on air and on your website to correct this scandalous situation. The fund-raiser is the “Republican Senatorial Inner Circle Spring National Meeting.” I sincerely hope this has been an oversight, an old arraignment you did not manage to get corrected in time. I trust you will also be publicizing theNRSCPledge.com after renouncing the NRSC appeals in your name.

Best Regards,

NRSC Front Group

Sunday, January 28th, 2007

The NRSC has sent out a mailer posing as the “Republican Presidential Task Force.” Read the fine print. It is a front for the NRSC and the money is only going to their coffers for reelection of Senators. I clipped off my name and “membership number” from the bogus membership card and fundraising form, printed out a copy of the NRSC Pledge, and stuffed them all back in the Postage Paid envelope. This will cost the NRSC the postage plus the staff time to process. And I’ll repeat this everytime they send another mailing until they grow a spine and support VICTORY and nothing less.

AZ propositions

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

The propositions tell a story of a law-and-order state with a bit of our founding Progressive impulse to make people be better (punishing nasty habits like smoking). So don’t smoking in public, pay a tobacco tax for the further institutionalization of preschool age children, and give food animals bigger pens to live in before we eat them. But don’t mess with the voting system by mailing out ballots to every registered voter and don’t turn ballots into lottery tickets.

Don’t lock up the public lands and don’t begger Grandma with ever-increasing property taxes. As to illegal aliens, don’t give them bail, don’t let them sue Americans, don’t give them any more access to the public schools than you must, and remind everyone that English is the language of Arizona. But we’re not mean spirited; we’re kind to the disadvantaged: the poor deserve a raise, and the elderly should be able to make whatever arrangements they want to take care of each other, so back off the extreme pursuit of any arrangement that might give legitimacy to gays. That last bit is complicated but it sold. And at the end of all the propositions and all the business the legislature failed to take care of itself, the people weren’t feeling generous about raises.

Here are the numbers as of Wednesday morning, from the spreadsheet at the official website http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/2006_General_results_query.htm

=====
Voting rate
overall 45.30%
Maracopa 42.1%
Pima 52.8%
So the traditional R stronghold was weak and the D stronghold came out. That may explain the Hayworth and AZ8 (Kolbe retiring) seats.

Props: y/n
Prop. 100 No bail for illegal immigrants: 77.8/22.2
Prop. 101 Local property tax levies (limit to inflation):50.4/49.6
Prop. 102 Limits on lawsuit damages for illegal immigrants:74.4 /25.6
Prop. 103 - English as state’s official language: 74.5/25.8
Prop. 104 - Municipal debt to include emergency services: 58.6/41.4
Prop. 105 - Preserve 43,000 acres of state trust lands: 28.8/71.2
(stalking horse to draw off 106)
Prop. 106 - Preserve 694,000 acres of state trust lands: 48.4/51.6
Prop. 107 - Ban same-sex marriage: 48.6/51.4
Prop. 200 - $1 million lottery for voters 33.6/66.4
Prop. 201 - Ban smoking in restaurants, bars 54.2/45.8
Prop. 202 - Raise minimum wage 65.8/34.2
Prop. 203 - Cigarette tax to fund pre-school programs 52.6/47.4
Prop. 204 - Ban small cages for pigs, calves 61.5/38.5
Prop. 205 - Require mail-in ballots 28.8/71.2
Prop. 206 - Ban smoking in restaurants, not bars: 42.7/57.3
Prop. 207 - Limit government’s ability to take land: 65.1/34.9
Prop. 300 - Limit education services for illegal immigrants: 71.6 /28.4
Prop. 301 - Ban probation for methamphetamine offenses: 58.1/41.9
(recall we support medical marijuana, so are more treatment oriented than punitive, hence the closer vote here)
Prop. 302 - Pay raise for state legislators 46.9/53.1

Election Day

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

Got up, brewed coffee and walked down the block to my polling place. Maybe 15 people in line. The ballot was long: four pages with all the propositions and judges. Allegedly the longest in the nation this year. But we get sample ballots and voter guides from various official and unofficial groups so there was no reason not to come in with all the “answers.” My snapshot observation was that a number of the people at my polling place had their preferences marked on a sample ballot or jotted down.

On the one hand, long ballots would seem to overwhelm and present a demand for judgment on matters which most of us know nothing about, and about which there is very little information to be found. How, exactly, am I supposed to judge which judge to retain and which not? On the other hand, if someone was to call themselves to the voters’ attention with especially politically offensive conduct/ decisions, then citizens have the opportunity to correct the perceived offense. So long as people feel indifferent or satisfied, the lists of obscure officials can be approved prefunctorilly or passed over entirely, the name on the list serving just as a safety valve for severe displeasure with a supposedly non-political official who calls themselves to the public’s attention.

Regarding officials and displeasure, I just do not understand how the head of the GOTV effort for the Republican Party helps his boss avoid impeachment by going on the air the day before an election, where he needs every R and a lot of I’s to come out for his slate, to call the base “restrictionists.” He did so on Hugh Hewitt’s program and Hugh did not challenge him. Laura Ingraham did pick up on it and was hot on the topic of operatives who had failed to produce results and even insulted the base for the past two years now trying so say it is the base’s fault in advance of the election results. Here is the quote in context:

HH: Now Karl Rove, you’ve got the Hispanic vote out there. The President’s done very well with it. It’s been absolutely essential to keep reminding the Hispanic voting community that it’s a great program that the President’s put forward in terms of legalization and a border security. Has that affected, though…the debate that’s been going on has often been not civil, despite the President’s attempt to keep it so. Has that affected Hispanic turnout, or Hispanic voting?

KR: I don’t know about a Hispanic turnout. I do think that individual Republican candidates are going to look back after this election and find that the rhetoric that they adopted hurt them in the Hispanic community. And we’re going to find other candidates who are going to look back and find that the rhetoric that they adopted by emphasizing a comprehensive solution to our border problems won them support in the Hispanic community. So I think there’s going to be…again, this race is going to be largely dominated by choices between two individual candidates running for the same office, and less by national issues. Now national issues will intrude, but they will intrude in the frame of a choice between the two individual candidates. And in that instance, I think immigration will be seen as…a comprehensive approach will be seen as a winner, and a narrow restrictionist approach will be seen as a loser.

Clumsy to adopt a negative label and even clumsier to do so the day before an election where you want the base to overlook the snubs and offenses of the past.

Congressman Shadegg

Sunday, January 15th, 2006

Congressman John Shadegg has entered the Republican House Majority Leader race. Why?

“For the past several days, I have spoken with members all across our Conference,” Shadegg said. “Based on those conversations, I believe that a majority of Republicans in the House understand the need for real, thorough reform. We must renew our commitment to the principles that won us a majority in the first place: fiscal discipline, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, returning power to the states, and greater personal freedom.”

He is part of the class of 1994. He announced he was giving up his current leadership position, Policy Chairman, as a matter of principle.

“I personally believe it is not appropriate to try to retain one position in our elected leadership while running for another. Therefore, I am resigning my position as Policy Chairman. My campaign is based on reform, and reform should begin with an open process.”

Contrast this with Congressmen Roy Blunt. Congressman John Boener’s press release on Shadegg’s entry is an indirect attack on Blunt.

John is an important member of our Conference and a respected voice for reform. His entry into the Majority Leader race is further proof the Conference isn’t happy with the status quo. Our Conference will only benefit from a truly open and competitive contest based on ideas, principles, and abilities, and I welcome him into the race. Between the two of us, we’re going to make this race about reforming how the House does business and providing a real alternative to the status quo. [emphasis added]