Going into some extended time off from work last April I was interested in possibly spending some of that time contributing to local politics in some way. I'm always a little scared to do this because I really want to stay objective. I want good policy, good laws, good people. The party is secondary. In fact even though I am currently a registered Democrat, I really understand what drives the conservative movement - its suspicion of top-down, big government solutions to problems, and its preference to allow local institutions and individuals to find their own solutions. I get the importance of family values and respect for the individual and the effectiveness of free markets. I'm a Democrat because despite these sympathies, I think we are facing problems today that are simply too big to leave government out of it, and I think the Republican party has veered too far to the right, but I certainly understand and share many of their core values.
Joining a specific political party, I worry that that I may end up just voting for clothes. That's no way to hold our government accountable. I wanted to be a much smarter voter. Rather than just vote for party, I want to really push my elected officials to defend their positions and their record. But yet, I still wanted to get involved.
So, talking to some volunteers at the Mark Mitchell campaign, I was convinced to devote considerable time to that campaign. Here's why. What campaigning and canvassing is typically about is to increase voter turnout among those already registered to vote in your party. Increased voter participation is a good thing and I wanted to be a part of informing voters of important local elections. So, that's basically what I'm doing. I want to let people know that we have important mayor races, city council races, state legislative races going on right now. What they do affect our lives.
This is why, I reserve the right to go out there and knock on doors letting people know what Mark Mitchell stands for and why someone should vote for him, while at the same time reserving my right to vote against him if I decide. In this case, I didn't end up doing that, and I understand there is a significant risk in doing what I'm trying to do. I'm not putting myself on a level and objective playing field. It's just hard to vote against your team once you've chosen to belong to one.
Of course, I'll only take this so far. I'll refuse to canvass for someone I really don't like. But this year, at least in my voting districts and regions, the Democratic candidates look to be pretty strong. They are worth my time and energy. Yet, my vote is far from being decided on most of these races (my vote for Maricopa country sheriff has long ago been decided).
To that end, I purposely wait until election day to vote. I want as much information as possible and I want as much time to gather that information as possible. As a blogger, I'll try to pass on what I learn to you as best as I can as an objective observer. My hope is that in most races, both candidates are qualified and smart and good. I'll try to point this out as much as I am able.
My goal for 2012 is to really get to know these candidates running in these local elections. We'll get more information than we can hope to absorb about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Four years ago, I spent a lot of energy on this blog on the Obama/McCain race. This time I'm going local. Instead, I'll focus my energy on Juan Mendez, Ed Ablser, and Andrew Sherwood and all of the rest.
It should be a lot of fun, can't wait.
Showing posts with label Local Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Elections. Show all posts
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Propositions - a Recap
As far as I know here are the results of the propositions. I have a pretty long history in being disappointed in state proposition results, but the reality of it is that I win some and I lose some and this year is no different. So, let's go down the line one by one:
Prop. 106
This proposition amends the state constitution to make it possible for for someone to pay for medical services in any way they prefer without having to pay a fine. I totally understand why this passed, but its not clear to me what the consequence of passing it will be. There will be definite conflicts between the language in this proposition and "Obamacare" passed by the federal government and there's enough ambiguity in the proposition, lawsuits are probably the only way to sort it all out. My feeling is that this proposition will waste some state funds but not result in any substantive change to our health care environment. I don't think Arizona has the authority to arbitrarily overrule what the federal government does. Conflicts will have to be decided in the courts.
Ultimately, I still believe people don't fully understand the need for mandates. If people really want to restrict insurance companies from denying those with preexisting conditions or to limit coverage or kick someone off their rolls based on their actuarial models, then by virtue of this restriction, they are essentially insured regardless of whether or not they pay a premium.
If you can wait until you are sick to enroll and still be covered, you were insured. Removing a mandate allows someone to free-ride.
And in essence, we have this ability to free ride right now, at least to some extent. How many people really want to live with the consequences of a society without mandates? Do you want to prove you can pay before being admitted into the hospital or being picked up by an ambulance? Do you want to be refused cancer treatments because of inadequate insurance?
My feeling is this proposition will ultimately have little to no consequence other than giving some lawyers something to do. But Arizonans have a history of of this kind of silliness.
In fact there seems to be a larger disconnect with voters nationwide. We want a bunch of services but we don't want to pay for them. We want stuff for nothing which is why we have this massive debt, and we need to start electing politicians who will call us on this (I blame Reagan by the way :-) ).
Proposition 107, Proposition 113
Prop 107 bans state sponsored affirmative action; prop 113 maintains the legality secret ballot in union elections. First off, its almost high comedy that Arizona passed 107 especially when we may be on the verge of gutting our government to balance the budget. Do our state universities (universities that accept practically everybody) really even use affirmative action?
On 113, I don't get the feeling that our unions have much power in our state, so this proposition does little to change that. In my view, both of these propositions will ultimately have little consequence.
The Rest
The voters agreed with me on the rest that have been decided:
1) Hunting and fishing is not a constitutional right on the same level of speech, press, and worship (phew).
2) No lieutenant governor position will be established (the idea is a good one, but it needs more vetting to make way for independents to run in the general election).
3) And the voters rejected the states attempts to balance the budget by pulling funds from state trust lands and "First Things First."
By the way on failing to pass 301 and 302 we have essentially blown a hole in our budget a mile wide. Voting no on these propositions only makes sense if our politicians are willing to raise revenue through tax increases (something I support). But I'm not sure if the average voter realizes this.
Instead, it looks like we'll ultimately have to reject $7 billion dollars of federal aid, so that we can gut medicaid. Is our goal to drive both migrant workers and the poor out of our state?.
I hope this quote raises more than a few eyebrows:
"The budget is more than $800 million in the hole this year, with another $1.4 billion in cuts needed next year. If you cut all of state government, with the exception of prisons, DES, K-12 and universities and AHCCCS, you would save $820 million."
Those Still to be Decided
Of the three propositions still undecided, legalizing marijuana is the one I care the most about and I'm praying and hoping it fails.
Prop. 106
This proposition amends the state constitution to make it possible for for someone to pay for medical services in any way they prefer without having to pay a fine. I totally understand why this passed, but its not clear to me what the consequence of passing it will be. There will be definite conflicts between the language in this proposition and "Obamacare" passed by the federal government and there's enough ambiguity in the proposition, lawsuits are probably the only way to sort it all out. My feeling is that this proposition will waste some state funds but not result in any substantive change to our health care environment. I don't think Arizona has the authority to arbitrarily overrule what the federal government does. Conflicts will have to be decided in the courts.
Ultimately, I still believe people don't fully understand the need for mandates. If people really want to restrict insurance companies from denying those with preexisting conditions or to limit coverage or kick someone off their rolls based on their actuarial models, then by virtue of this restriction, they are essentially insured regardless of whether or not they pay a premium.
If you can wait until you are sick to enroll and still be covered, you were insured. Removing a mandate allows someone to free-ride.
And in essence, we have this ability to free ride right now, at least to some extent. How many people really want to live with the consequences of a society without mandates? Do you want to prove you can pay before being admitted into the hospital or being picked up by an ambulance? Do you want to be refused cancer treatments because of inadequate insurance?
My feeling is this proposition will ultimately have little to no consequence other than giving some lawyers something to do. But Arizonans have a history of of this kind of silliness.
In fact there seems to be a larger disconnect with voters nationwide. We want a bunch of services but we don't want to pay for them. We want stuff for nothing which is why we have this massive debt, and we need to start electing politicians who will call us on this (I blame Reagan by the way :-) ).
Proposition 107, Proposition 113
Prop 107 bans state sponsored affirmative action; prop 113 maintains the legality secret ballot in union elections. First off, its almost high comedy that Arizona passed 107 especially when we may be on the verge of gutting our government to balance the budget. Do our state universities (universities that accept practically everybody) really even use affirmative action?
On 113, I don't get the feeling that our unions have much power in our state, so this proposition does little to change that. In my view, both of these propositions will ultimately have little consequence.
The Rest
The voters agreed with me on the rest that have been decided:
1) Hunting and fishing is not a constitutional right on the same level of speech, press, and worship (phew).
2) No lieutenant governor position will be established (the idea is a good one, but it needs more vetting to make way for independents to run in the general election).
3) And the voters rejected the states attempts to balance the budget by pulling funds from state trust lands and "First Things First."
By the way on failing to pass 301 and 302 we have essentially blown a hole in our budget a mile wide. Voting no on these propositions only makes sense if our politicians are willing to raise revenue through tax increases (something I support). But I'm not sure if the average voter realizes this.
Instead, it looks like we'll ultimately have to reject $7 billion dollars of federal aid, so that we can gut medicaid. Is our goal to drive both migrant workers and the poor out of our state?.
I hope this quote raises more than a few eyebrows:
"The budget is more than $800 million in the hole this year, with another $1.4 billion in cuts needed next year. If you cut all of state government, with the exception of prisons, DES, K-12 and universities and AHCCCS, you would save $820 million."
Those Still to be Decided
Of the three propositions still undecided, legalizing marijuana is the one I care the most about and I'm praying and hoping it fails.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Quick Reaction to the State Election Results
It looks like the Republicans won the state-wide elections in a clean sweep. And it looks like they are gaining majorities in the legislature. On top of that both Proposition 301 and Proposition 302 went down in big defeats.
So, what to make of this (if anything)?
Prop 301 and 302 were put on the ballot in a desperate attempt to find millions of dollars to help balance the Arizona budget. The voters said heck no with emphasis (302 moves funds allocated for "First things First" into the general fund, 301 transfers money from the state land conservation fund into the general fund).
Meanwhile, the Republicans have been running almost religiously on the principle of no new taxes. They also want additional resources on the border and want to expand the police force role to include immigration enforcement (HB1070).
They also have a constitutional mandate to balance a state budget they couldn't balance last year even with the help of the federal stimulus. Do you remember the stimulus is running out and won't be available next year? Meanwhile, of the 50 states, we are one of the most frugal states in the country in terms of per pupil funding on education.
Not to mention we elect Huppenthal who now has a voter mandate to turn all of our schools into charters or something.
I have no idea where all of this is heading, but it doesn't look good for Arizona.
Good luck Republicans. You're in charge of this mess almost completely now. My prayers are with you.
So, what to make of this (if anything)?
Prop 301 and 302 were put on the ballot in a desperate attempt to find millions of dollars to help balance the Arizona budget. The voters said heck no with emphasis (302 moves funds allocated for "First things First" into the general fund, 301 transfers money from the state land conservation fund into the general fund).
Meanwhile, the Republicans have been running almost religiously on the principle of no new taxes. They also want additional resources on the border and want to expand the police force role to include immigration enforcement (HB1070).
They also have a constitutional mandate to balance a state budget they couldn't balance last year even with the help of the federal stimulus. Do you remember the stimulus is running out and won't be available next year? Meanwhile, of the 50 states, we are one of the most frugal states in the country in terms of per pupil funding on education.
Not to mention we elect Huppenthal who now has a voter mandate to turn all of our schools into charters or something.
I have no idea where all of this is heading, but it doesn't look good for Arizona.
Good luck Republicans. You're in charge of this mess almost completely now. My prayers are with you.
Monday, November 1, 2010
My Ballot Picks
I've been trying really hard this election to stay up to speed on the candidates and I've been doing pretty well. The night before the election I thought I'd might finalize my picks in one post.
My general strategy is to vote Democrat, although in this post I'll tell you the elections I think where the candidates are pretty even.
For reference, here are my propositions.
Here are the Arizona Republic's picks
On to my picks:
My general strategy is to vote Democrat, although in this post I'll tell you the elections I think where the candidates are pretty even.
For reference, here are my propositions.
Here are the Arizona Republic's picks
On to my picks:
My Ballot
| Position | My Vote | Arizona Republic's Opinon | Brief Explanation |
| Senate | Rodney Glassman | John McCain | Rodney Glassman is young, inexperienced, from a rich family, has some question marks in his past, but he's also smart, energetic, polished, and confident. John McCain brought Sarah Palin to the world and may do his part to end it if for some odd chance Palin wins the presidency in 2012. His presidential campaign, in a word, was awful. He's also changing course on a number of issues, trying desperately to reincarnate himself into the Rush Limbaugh of the Senate. This is really more of a no vote against McCain than a yes vote for Glassman (McCain is someone I've really, really liked in the past, so I'm sad to see McCain's career turn this way). |
| Congressional District 5 | Harry Mitchell | David Schweikert | This is one of those elections where two really pretty good candidates are running against each other. Harry Mitchell has a long, deep and substantive record in local politics. A longtime teacher at Tempe High, the mayor of Tempe, a state legislature, and a Congressman for two terms. He's a moderate all the way, every bill he's authored has had Republican co-signers. I'm voting for him because he voted for Obamacare, despite some of his misgivings, he did what was right. Schweikert is young, energetic and a fiscal conservative. I trust (though not sure) he would be sincere in his attempts to act as a counter-weight to Obama's spending. I'm voting for Mitchell, but Schweikert should be a better representative than J.D. Hayworth (who Mitchell beat in 2006) if he were to win. For now, I believe the election is too close to call. |
| Governor | Terry Goddard | Jan Brewer | Jan Brewer was not prepared to take over when Napolitano left, but after a slow start she's been competent. I abhorred the 1070b signing, but she did defend it with passion. Goddard, though, is a much more competent governor who would defend our schools in the face of a legislature who will try their hardest to cut its funding. The state is facing hard times right now. The schools are already scraping by. Goddard is in a better position to do the right thing. |
| Secretary of State | Chris Deschene | Ken Bennett | This one is a tossup election for me and admittedly Ken Bennett has more direct experience and is better prepared to take over as governor if for some reason he's called upon. Both seem qualified to assume the responsibilities of Secretary of State. I want greater participation in the elections and I trust Deschene will work harder to reach out to the disenfranchised. I'm going with Deschene. |
| Treasurer | Andrei Cherney | Doug Ducey | I agree with Ducey ideologically more than I do with Cherney. I just trust Cherney more than I do Ducey. My heart and gut over rule my head on this one. |
| Attorney General | Felicia Rotellini | Felicia Rotellini | Wow, the Arizona Republic finally agrees with me :-). This is a no-brainer. Tom Horne is a strong candidate, although he does have a lifetime ban from the SEC (for something he did 40 years ago - but still). But this is more about Rotellini - she's incredible, highly qualified, with a sterling record. Arizona would really muff this one if they chose Horne over Rotellini. |
| School Superintendent | Penny Kotterman | John Huppenthal | Another no brainer. If you're a school reform ideologue with no faith in teachers or administrators and all it takes to run our schools is in-depth knowledge on the latest research (no matter how sketchy or politicized) - Huppenthal is your guy. He's never taught school, but has a long record writing legislative bills on school policy. Kotterman has been an instructor and a administrator, has a deep knowledge of school issues and a comprehensive view on how to improve them. This choice should also be a no brainer. |
| Corporation Commision | Gary Pierce and David Bradley | Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns | There are three really qualified candidates running from my view (the second Democrat unfortunately passed away). I prefer a little more emphasis on renewable energy than the Republicans will bring to the table, but I'll be happy no matter what happens here I'm sure. |
| Central Arizona Water Conservation District | "Tim Bray, Frank Fairbanks, Jim Holway, Arif Kazmi, Sid Wilson | Same | I'm placing my trust in the AZ Republic on this one. There are some tea-party candidates running who just want to cut costs and have no background or experience with water. Be sure to avoid those folks. |
| State Mining Inspector | Manuel Cruz | Joe Hart | Two good candidates - one is focused more on advocacy for mining in the state, the other is more focused on regulation and safety. I'm going for the second. |
| Legislative District 17 - Senate | David Schapira | David Schapira | David Shapira is much more qualified and knowledgeable on the issues than Wendy Rogers. Rogers skipped their one debate and has a pretty narrow view of the issues facing Arizona generally. Shapira is by far the better choice. |
| Legislative District 17 - House | Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo | Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo | I never did getting around to blogging about this race. The Republicans did not field anybody even worth mentioning once Steve May dropped out (he was kind of a joke as well). Its inexplicable - this district has plenty of Republicans living in it and we've had substantive Republicans representing it in the past. Ben Arredondo is a rock and the better of the two. Ed Ableser is energetic although a bit idealistic apparently. |
| County Attorney | Bill Montgomery | Bill Montgomery | I really like Rick Romley who lost to him in the primaries. There are no Democrats running. Montgomery was endored by Arpiro which is a big negative for me, but I'm assuming he's competent enough for the position. |
| Clerk of the Superior Court | Michael Jeanes | Michael Jeanes | Going with the AZ Republic on this one |
| Justice of the Peace - Kyrene | Elizabeth Rogers | Unknown | She's the incumbent and the Democrat |
| Constable | Jon Levenson | Unknown | I've met him and his sign is in my yard. |
| High School Governing Board | Dave Wells and David Schapira | Unknown | Dave Wells is a professor at ASU and seems knowledgeable and energetic. Schapira is also running for the the Senate (part time position) and can use his influence to help Tempe High schools |
Monday, October 25, 2010
Two Debates Over the Weekend
I'm slowly making my way down my sample ballot. Hopefully by this weekend (post the JDRF walk this Saturday morning, I'll compose a post with a complete set of all my picks. I'm afraid all of the research on the judges will be last minute.
Well, this weekend I watched two debates:
Harry Mitchell verses David Schweikert (and Nick Coons).
Ok, I was already decided on this issue a loong time ago, but it was still fun to watch. Last week I did a little phone canvasing for Harry Mitchell and if I would have watched this debate I would have been better on the phone.
Harry Mitchell is a true moderate Democrat - someone who is used to representing more conservative districts than the party he belongs to. In the debate he emphasized the bills he wrote and received Republican co-signers (one co-signed by Ron Paul to freeze Congressman pay raises). He also emphasizes tax cuts - especially those on capital gains and the estate.
There's also an interesting (though superficial) debate on the health care bill in this debate. Although Schweikert makes some completely wrong points on the health care bill that Mitchell doesn't do near a good enough job refuting.
Moving on to a race I'm still undecided on - the important State Mine Inspector:
The candidates are Manuel Cruz verses the incumbent Joe Hart.
They both seem extremely experienced in mining. Joe Hart is the Republican who seems to be a little more oriented toward the interest of miners and the miner companies. He wants to act like more an advocate of mining and less a regulator. Although, I do believe he is sincerely trying to close and cover dead mines (he's covered I believe 200 since being in office), and I do believe he cares about safety. He just also cares about mining as an industry - and that comes out in this debate.
Manuel Cruz is the Democrat and he's the more environmentalist candidate - someone who wants to emphasize safety regulation and mining safety. He wants to be the regulator (although I'm sure he'll advocate as well). He was extremely critical of Joe Hart on a couple of key points - particularly Hart's slow rate of closing dead mines (Hart claims resource constraints).
So, largely, I suspect that both candidates will run the office in similar ways, I also suspect that each will emphasize certain aspects of the office a bit differently.
Comically, Obamacare came up in this debate (Hart accusing Cruz of using Obamacare-like financing as a way to push his mining agenda :-) ).
I think both candidates are qualified to run this office.
The Arizona Republic endorses Joe Hart, and someone inexplicably endorses David Schweikert.
I have to say I more or less agree with the AZ Republic here on both counts (I'm still voting for Harry Mitchell and I'm leaning toward a vote for Cruz). I think the next two years is going to be (for better of for worse) about debt reduction, and David Schweikert is probably more suitable for this particular task than Mitchell.
However, the thing that worries me is if Republicans take the House (which they probably will) will have a nightmarish scenario where House Republicans hold up all kinds of stuff (including Health care reform) through endless law suits and subpoenas. Diane Rehm goes into this on today's show.
I like Mitchell, a lot and am committed to vote for him, but I probably wouldn't be tooo sad if Schweitkert won (ok, a little sad)...
(Incidentally, Schweikert's the small business owner of a real estate investment firm which given the nature of our bubble and burst in Arizona is probably not a good thing).
Well, this weekend I watched two debates:
Harry Mitchell verses David Schweikert (and Nick Coons).
Ok, I was already decided on this issue a loong time ago, but it was still fun to watch. Last week I did a little phone canvasing for Harry Mitchell and if I would have watched this debate I would have been better on the phone.
Harry Mitchell is a true moderate Democrat - someone who is used to representing more conservative districts than the party he belongs to. In the debate he emphasized the bills he wrote and received Republican co-signers (one co-signed by Ron Paul to freeze Congressman pay raises). He also emphasizes tax cuts - especially those on capital gains and the estate.
There's also an interesting (though superficial) debate on the health care bill in this debate. Although Schweikert makes some completely wrong points on the health care bill that Mitchell doesn't do near a good enough job refuting.
Moving on to a race I'm still undecided on - the important State Mine Inspector:
The candidates are Manuel Cruz verses the incumbent Joe Hart.
They both seem extremely experienced in mining. Joe Hart is the Republican who seems to be a little more oriented toward the interest of miners and the miner companies. He wants to act like more an advocate of mining and less a regulator. Although, I do believe he is sincerely trying to close and cover dead mines (he's covered I believe 200 since being in office), and I do believe he cares about safety. He just also cares about mining as an industry - and that comes out in this debate.
Manuel Cruz is the Democrat and he's the more environmentalist candidate - someone who wants to emphasize safety regulation and mining safety. He wants to be the regulator (although I'm sure he'll advocate as well). He was extremely critical of Joe Hart on a couple of key points - particularly Hart's slow rate of closing dead mines (Hart claims resource constraints).
So, largely, I suspect that both candidates will run the office in similar ways, I also suspect that each will emphasize certain aspects of the office a bit differently.
Comically, Obamacare came up in this debate (Hart accusing Cruz of using Obamacare-like financing as a way to push his mining agenda :-) ).
I think both candidates are qualified to run this office.
The Arizona Republic endorses Joe Hart, and someone inexplicably endorses David Schweikert.
I have to say I more or less agree with the AZ Republic here on both counts (I'm still voting for Harry Mitchell and I'm leaning toward a vote for Cruz). I think the next two years is going to be (for better of for worse) about debt reduction, and David Schweikert is probably more suitable for this particular task than Mitchell.
However, the thing that worries me is if Republicans take the House (which they probably will) will have a nightmarish scenario where House Republicans hold up all kinds of stuff (including Health care reform) through endless law suits and subpoenas. Diane Rehm goes into this on today's show.
I like Mitchell, a lot and am committed to vote for him, but I probably wouldn't be tooo sad if Schweitkert won (ok, a little sad)...
(Incidentally, Schweikert's the small business owner of a real estate investment firm which given the nature of our bubble and burst in Arizona is probably not a good thing).
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Why I'm contemplating a Democratic Party Line Vote
Just to set this up by stating the obvious :-), all but one of the elections on the ballot are state elections (or below). The one exception is the seat for US Congress. State issues parallel national ones in many ways, but also there are some important differences between the two. Unless you're Sarah Palin, foreign policy views are pretty much irrelevant (ok, for Arizona, border issues with Mexico matters - but certainly not the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq).
This website gives a break down on how Arizona spends its money - largely on education and health care (as opposed to the federal government which breaks down mostly among defense, health care and social security).
So, education and healthcare are two of the big issues state politicians must tackle.
But consider Arizona is one of the lowest states in the country on per pupil education spending and that Arizona ranks 41st in the country in overall tax state and local tax burden felt by an individual.
Over the last decade or so Arizona politics has mirrored federal. We have relied on accounting gimmicks and an unsustainable housing bubble to fuel a growth in spending demands even as we cut state and local taxes. Anecdotally, we have a race to the bottom political mentality. One example is seen whenever a big business wants to move into the valley and each city offers sweetheart tax loopholes in an effort to get the business within their city limits.
The housing boom is over and will probably not return. Arizona can still be a growth state but we need to transform our politics to something sustainable. Furthermore, education is our future, we can't endure much more in the way of cuts if we really want Arizona to remain an attractive destination for families with kids. Additionally, if we ever want to to to create a Silicon Valley clone, or something like it, we need to improve our universities.
This all takes money (I'm all for education reform but until someone can show me how great schools can be created with no resources you can't tell we don't need money), so tax hikes have got to be a part of the equation in the balanced budget debates.
But the Republican party has demogogued themselves out of tax hikes largely. They talk about how we must learn to live in a more resource constrained environment.
Jane Brewer did get a 1% sales tax proposition on the ballot which passed overwhelmingly, but if it wasn't for 1070B, she probably would have lost in the primaries at least partially because of that tax increase. So, there are definitely reasonable, smart leaders in the Republican party, but they exist in a pretty toxic political environment right now.
More examples: I probably would vote for Ken Bennett for Secretary of State (he seems like a talented, pragmatic and experienced person) if these were different times. Tom Horne probably would make a good Attorney General. Jan Brewer (assuming she's healthy) has been a decent governor (at least in the second half of her term - she had a rough/slow start). I'm torn between Duce and Cherney for treasurer.
But, ideologically, the Republican party has been stifled by an ideology dominated by tax cutting dogma that usually makes no sense (I'm not against low taxes - but what are going to live without and is it worth it).
They want to turn every issue into a debate between the markets and socialism (including schools). The results have been and will continue to be a race to the bottom for most except the truly well off who will always get access to what they desire. There is a reason why we have a growing income gap in this country.
I definitely don't want socialism. I just want greater access to schools and health care for more people. Keep most everything else private. But education is our future. We need to invest in it.
So, yes, despite some of the tough choices, I'm probably going to go Democratic in this election. The stakes are too high and right now, I don't trust the Republicans.
This website gives a break down on how Arizona spends its money - largely on education and health care (as opposed to the federal government which breaks down mostly among defense, health care and social security).
So, education and healthcare are two of the big issues state politicians must tackle.
But consider Arizona is one of the lowest states in the country on per pupil education spending and that Arizona ranks 41st in the country in overall tax state and local tax burden felt by an individual.
Over the last decade or so Arizona politics has mirrored federal. We have relied on accounting gimmicks and an unsustainable housing bubble to fuel a growth in spending demands even as we cut state and local taxes. Anecdotally, we have a race to the bottom political mentality. One example is seen whenever a big business wants to move into the valley and each city offers sweetheart tax loopholes in an effort to get the business within their city limits.
The housing boom is over and will probably not return. Arizona can still be a growth state but we need to transform our politics to something sustainable. Furthermore, education is our future, we can't endure much more in the way of cuts if we really want Arizona to remain an attractive destination for families with kids. Additionally, if we ever want to to to create a Silicon Valley clone, or something like it, we need to improve our universities.
This all takes money (I'm all for education reform but until someone can show me how great schools can be created with no resources you can't tell we don't need money), so tax hikes have got to be a part of the equation in the balanced budget debates.
But the Republican party has demogogued themselves out of tax hikes largely. They talk about how we must learn to live in a more resource constrained environment.
Jane Brewer did get a 1% sales tax proposition on the ballot which passed overwhelmingly, but if it wasn't for 1070B, she probably would have lost in the primaries at least partially because of that tax increase. So, there are definitely reasonable, smart leaders in the Republican party, but they exist in a pretty toxic political environment right now.
More examples: I probably would vote for Ken Bennett for Secretary of State (he seems like a talented, pragmatic and experienced person) if these were different times. Tom Horne probably would make a good Attorney General. Jan Brewer (assuming she's healthy) has been a decent governor (at least in the second half of her term - she had a rough/slow start). I'm torn between Duce and Cherney for treasurer.
But, ideologically, the Republican party has been stifled by an ideology dominated by tax cutting dogma that usually makes no sense (I'm not against low taxes - but what are going to live without and is it worth it).
They want to turn every issue into a debate between the markets and socialism (including schools). The results have been and will continue to be a race to the bottom for most except the truly well off who will always get access to what they desire. There is a reason why we have a growing income gap in this country.
I definitely don't want socialism. I just want greater access to schools and health care for more people. Keep most everything else private. But education is our future. We need to invest in it.
So, yes, despite some of the tough choices, I'm probably going to go Democratic in this election. The stakes are too high and right now, I don't trust the Republicans.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Quick Post on the Corporation Commission
Just partially listened to the debate on Channel 8:
Sadly, one of the candidates recently passed away and to tell you the truth, he didn't look too healthy in the debate...
I don't have a huge issue with the three remaining (ok four, the libertarian candidate seemed pretty good too).
I think right now I'm leaning toward Gary Pierce and David Bradley.
I actually don't see a lot of differences between Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns, but Pierce is the encumbent and seems to know the issues better in my mind.
Bradley has a stronger emphasis on renewable energy, Pierce's focus is on keeping utility rates low.
Remember, though, the Republican party is the only party in the world that doesn't believe global warming exists.
So, I do think we have to get to clean energy, I do want folks on the corporation commission who agree with that. I do think costs are another very important factor however, and it seems like David Bradley gets that balance.
But I'm not sure you can go wrong, ultimately, with any of the three.
Full Disclosure - Gary Pierce is from Yuma - and yes I knew him, and yes, he's my facebook friend :-).
Sadly, one of the candidates recently passed away and to tell you the truth, he didn't look too healthy in the debate...
I don't have a huge issue with the three remaining (ok four, the libertarian candidate seemed pretty good too).
I think right now I'm leaning toward Gary Pierce and David Bradley.
I actually don't see a lot of differences between Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns, but Pierce is the encumbent and seems to know the issues better in my mind.
Bradley has a stronger emphasis on renewable energy, Pierce's focus is on keeping utility rates low.
Remember, though, the Republican party is the only party in the world that doesn't believe global warming exists.
So, I do think we have to get to clean energy, I do want folks on the corporation commission who agree with that. I do think costs are another very important factor however, and it seems like David Bradley gets that balance.
But I'm not sure you can go wrong, ultimately, with any of the three.
Full Disclosure - Gary Pierce is from Yuma - and yes I knew him, and yes, he's my facebook friend :-).
The State Propositions
My general approach to propositions, when in doubt vote No.
I actually hate the trend we have in the state to put a lot of pretty technical and complex issues on the ballot. If this is the trend, then why do we have a legislative branch? Why not get rid of it and vote for laws by ballot measure exclusively?
Its tiring and ridiculous. Having said that, I did get talked into one yes vote, but my yes is very tentative, I could easily be talked into a no.
I'm a bit torn on the union measure and on the affirmative action measure. I could be talked into a yes on either to tell you the truth.
Mostly, do, my no's are pretty firm.
I actually hate the trend we have in the state to put a lot of pretty technical and complex issues on the ballot. If this is the trend, then why do we have a legislative branch? Why not get rid of it and vote for laws by ballot measure exclusively?
Its tiring and ridiculous. Having said that, I did get talked into one yes vote, but my yes is very tentative, I could easily be talked into a no.
I'm a bit torn on the union measure and on the affirmative action measure. I could be talked into a yes on either to tell you the truth.
Mostly, do, my no's are pretty firm.
The Propositions
| Proposition | My Vote | Arizona Republic's Opinon
| Brief Explanation |
| 106: Healthcare Freedom Act for Arizona | No | No | I strongly disagree with this - its a backdoor way to use the state constitution to weaken Obama's health care law. Federal law over-rules state law and it will waste our resources. By the way, we need mandates - everyone needs to pay for health care if we expect the guarantees we expect and demand. |
| Proposition 107: Arizona Civil Rights Initiative | No | Yes | I'm soft on this one. Are we passed the need for affirmative action? I personally am not so sure. |
| 109: Arizona Hunting and Fishing Amendment | No | No | Making it a constitutional right to hunt and fish? Unnecessary. |
| 110: Arizona State Trust Lands | Yes | Yes | Seems reasonable to me. |
| 111: Arizona Lieutenant Governor | No | Yes | The idea is a good one, this law is poorly written - it will provide a barrier for independents to run |
| 112: Arizona Signature Filing | No | Yes | There are already too many initiatives on the ballot.
|
| 113: Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot | No | Yes | I don't have a strong opinion on this (right now).. |
| 203: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act | No | No | This is just an excuse to make marijuana legal |
| 301: Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer | No | No | We can't balance the budget on the backs of our most precious resources. State lands need to be protected
|
| 302: Arizona First Things First Program Repeal | No | No | And we can't balance the budget on the backs of our children. |
Thursday, September 30, 2010
State Treasurer - I can't decide
If you want to feel like you need a shower after watching a debate, watch this one:
On the issues, I have to say I think Doug Ducey makes more sense to me than Andre Cherney.
Here's what I can pull from this debate:
Doug Ducey wants to be a responsible banker of the state's finances, fine. They both do. More radically (but its only slightly more radical), he wants to work with the governor to find ways to entice businesses to move to Arizona. How he would do that? Its unknown. But he definitely wants to use the office to be sort of an assistant to the Governor?
Andre Cherney wants to use the Treasurer's office to audit the state's finances and to expose wasteful state spending. I agree with Ducey on this point, I'm not sure a Democratic Treasurer playing partisan games with what is most likely going to be a Republican controlled legislature is a good idea. I think that's an over-reach and will probably be a pretty ineffective tactic.
He also states he wants to use state funds to invest in Arizona companies to promote clean energy and biotech technologies. Again, I agree with Ducey, this seems risky and not an appropriate use of state funds designated and allocated for schools.
Ideologically, I agree with much of what Cherney advocates - ensure money for schools, I wouldn't mind seeing state funds invested in clean energy and biotech and other areas to spur innovation in the state. I also agree that legislature needs better oversight.
But should the person to advocate for these sorts of things be the State Treasurer? Maybe. But he definitely shouldn't be pushing for ideological causes with state funds. If the legislature wants to allocate a slice of the state funds for these kinds of purposes, it should be decided upon there - the legislative branch working with the governor. The treasurer simply should not be risking state funds in this way.
I also disagree with Cherney that Dean Martin has done a poor job as the Treasurer. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, but my sense is that Dean Martin is a stand up guy whose done a good job in a touch economic climate. He would have been a much better candidate for governor than Jan Brewer. He gets no blame for the fact that we lost a lot of money because of the stock market crash (everything crashed - there were no safe places to put your money in 2008).
Having said that, Doug Ducey rubs me the wrong way. He's this smooth talking corporate guy who says all the right things but you wonder if he's just telling you what you want to hear. His failure to pay his taxes on time is concerning. I also have heard that there were issues with Cold Stone Creamery - too rapid growth, too many franchises too close together which hurt the individual franchise owners in order to boost corporate profits.
And the way he tried to group Cherney with President Obama and then blame Obama for our recession was dreadful. I realize it was a political ploy, but it was stupid and dishonest (I know Ducey realizes Obama did not drive our economy into the ditch, it was pretty well in the ditch when he took office).
And who cares anyways, Cherney is not Obama. Stick with the issues.
So, it seems like we have the choice between uninspiring candidates for Treasurer, which is too bad.
By the way, I endorsed Barbara Leff for Republican nomination for treasure. I stand by that. I think she would have been the the better choice between these two.
But again, I'm basing this opinion off of one flimsy interview. I'm open to your suggestions.
On the issues, I have to say I think Doug Ducey makes more sense to me than Andre Cherney.
Here's what I can pull from this debate:
Doug Ducey wants to be a responsible banker of the state's finances, fine. They both do. More radically (but its only slightly more radical), he wants to work with the governor to find ways to entice businesses to move to Arizona. How he would do that? Its unknown. But he definitely wants to use the office to be sort of an assistant to the Governor?
Andre Cherney wants to use the Treasurer's office to audit the state's finances and to expose wasteful state spending. I agree with Ducey on this point, I'm not sure a Democratic Treasurer playing partisan games with what is most likely going to be a Republican controlled legislature is a good idea. I think that's an over-reach and will probably be a pretty ineffective tactic.
He also states he wants to use state funds to invest in Arizona companies to promote clean energy and biotech technologies. Again, I agree with Ducey, this seems risky and not an appropriate use of state funds designated and allocated for schools.
Ideologically, I agree with much of what Cherney advocates - ensure money for schools, I wouldn't mind seeing state funds invested in clean energy and biotech and other areas to spur innovation in the state. I also agree that legislature needs better oversight.
But should the person to advocate for these sorts of things be the State Treasurer? Maybe. But he definitely shouldn't be pushing for ideological causes with state funds. If the legislature wants to allocate a slice of the state funds for these kinds of purposes, it should be decided upon there - the legislative branch working with the governor. The treasurer simply should not be risking state funds in this way.
I also disagree with Cherney that Dean Martin has done a poor job as the Treasurer. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, but my sense is that Dean Martin is a stand up guy whose done a good job in a touch economic climate. He would have been a much better candidate for governor than Jan Brewer. He gets no blame for the fact that we lost a lot of money because of the stock market crash (everything crashed - there were no safe places to put your money in 2008).
Having said that, Doug Ducey rubs me the wrong way. He's this smooth talking corporate guy who says all the right things but you wonder if he's just telling you what you want to hear. His failure to pay his taxes on time is concerning. I also have heard that there were issues with Cold Stone Creamery - too rapid growth, too many franchises too close together which hurt the individual franchise owners in order to boost corporate profits.
And the way he tried to group Cherney with President Obama and then blame Obama for our recession was dreadful. I realize it was a political ploy, but it was stupid and dishonest (I know Ducey realizes Obama did not drive our economy into the ditch, it was pretty well in the ditch when he took office).
And who cares anyways, Cherney is not Obama. Stick with the issues.
So, it seems like we have the choice between uninspiring candidates for Treasurer, which is too bad.
By the way, I endorsed Barbara Leff for Republican nomination for treasure. I stand by that. I think she would have been the the better choice between these two.
But again, I'm basing this opinion off of one flimsy interview. I'm open to your suggestions.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Local Elections Update Part III
So, I recently watched the debates on Secretary of State debates here:
Both candidates seemed perfectly reasonable to me from the perspective of who is best qualified for the position of Secretary of State. In Arizona, however, the Secretary of State has a really good chance of becoming governor, and I have no idea who would make a better governor from this debate.
Of course, it looks like I'm voting Democratic party line (I'm persuadable on some of these candidates, though) with maybe one or two exceptions - we'll see, so I'm probably going to vote for Chris Deschene here for a couple of pretty small-sounding reasons.
First, Deschene seems like he is more sensitive to the needs of making it easier to vote - to try to outreach to more people (I don't have strong evidence of this but it came up in the debate).
Another issue that came up in the debate was the issue about how Republicans recruited sham Green candidates in hopes of diluting the vote. For me this was a triviality. These Green candidates were awful and would maybe garner a handful of votes and it would be quite doubtful that any of them would turn an election.
But Robert Robb has interesting commentary hear on Deschene:
"Democratic secretary of state candidate Chris Deschene has been attempting to beat up incumbent Republican Ken Bennett for watching silently as the Democrats and Republicans litigated over the political inner thoughts of some vagabonds. According to Deschene, Bennett should have demanded an investigation, held a denunciatory press conference and maybe even held up the printing of the general election ballots.
This likewise is deeply troubling. The secretary of state administers our elections. It is even less appropriate for the administrator of an election to be rendering public judgments about the sincerity and motivation of candidates than for a judge to do so."
This did come up in the debate. I guess I have no idea on how I feel about any of this, it all seems like such a small issue.
I did think Deschene had a stronger answer to regarding proposition 111. I have yet to study the propositions, but my first impression is that they are all bad.
Here's Robb on Prop 111:
"* According to the co-chairmen of the Proposition 111 campaign committee, Tom Simplot and Jonathan Paton, “there is nothing in the proposition that would preclude the election of an independent candidate for governor and lieutenant governor.”
But there is.
Proposition 111 plainly says: “each nominee for the office of governor shall run on a ticket as a joint candidate in the general election with the nominee for the office of lieutenant governor from the same political party as the nominee for governor.” (Emphasis added.)
“Each” means every single candidate, no exceptions. “Shall” means it's mandatory. “From the same political party” means, well, from the same political party. Independents don't belong to a political party. So, by the clear and explicit language of Proposition 111, they are ineligible for either the office of governor or lieutenant governor.
Moreover, this is a constitutional requirement that cannot be amended or fixed by legislation.
Asserting differently doesn't make it so.
* Simplot and Paton were writing in rebuttal to a column of mine that also said that it was a dumb idea to put the administration of elections into the office of governor, as Proposition 111 would provide.
Although Proposition 111 clearly says that the lieutenant governor would assume the duties of the secretary of state, Simplot and Paton say that might not end up to be the case. The Legislature would ultimately decide.
The lieutenant governor might be in charge of economic development. Or might not. The lieutenant governor might administer elections. Or might not.
In other words, Proposition 111 proponents want to establish the office of lieutenant governor now, but have the Legislature decide later what, if anything, the office would actually do.
Now there's a plan."
Deschene opposes this proposition, Ken Bennett, in the debate, declared neutrality, but seems inclined to support it.
To be honest, I could probably care less which of these candidates monitors our elections (the primary responsibility of Secretary of State), I do care, however, which of these ends up as our next governor if something should happen to the elected one. However, I have no idea which candidate would make a better governor and this debate did little to help me with that.
Watch the full episode. See more Arizona Illustrated.
Both candidates seemed perfectly reasonable to me from the perspective of who is best qualified for the position of Secretary of State. In Arizona, however, the Secretary of State has a really good chance of becoming governor, and I have no idea who would make a better governor from this debate.
Of course, it looks like I'm voting Democratic party line (I'm persuadable on some of these candidates, though) with maybe one or two exceptions - we'll see, so I'm probably going to vote for Chris Deschene here for a couple of pretty small-sounding reasons.
First, Deschene seems like he is more sensitive to the needs of making it easier to vote - to try to outreach to more people (I don't have strong evidence of this but it came up in the debate).
Another issue that came up in the debate was the issue about how Republicans recruited sham Green candidates in hopes of diluting the vote. For me this was a triviality. These Green candidates were awful and would maybe garner a handful of votes and it would be quite doubtful that any of them would turn an election.
But Robert Robb has interesting commentary hear on Deschene:
"Democratic secretary of state candidate Chris Deschene has been attempting to beat up incumbent Republican Ken Bennett for watching silently as the Democrats and Republicans litigated over the political inner thoughts of some vagabonds. According to Deschene, Bennett should have demanded an investigation, held a denunciatory press conference and maybe even held up the printing of the general election ballots.
This likewise is deeply troubling. The secretary of state administers our elections. It is even less appropriate for the administrator of an election to be rendering public judgments about the sincerity and motivation of candidates than for a judge to do so."
This did come up in the debate. I guess I have no idea on how I feel about any of this, it all seems like such a small issue.
I did think Deschene had a stronger answer to regarding proposition 111. I have yet to study the propositions, but my first impression is that they are all bad.
Here's Robb on Prop 111:
"* According to the co-chairmen of the Proposition 111 campaign committee, Tom Simplot and Jonathan Paton, “there is nothing in the proposition that would preclude the election of an independent candidate for governor and lieutenant governor.”
But there is.
Proposition 111 plainly says: “each nominee for the office of governor shall run on a ticket as a joint candidate in the general election with the nominee for the office of lieutenant governor from the same political party as the nominee for governor.” (Emphasis added.)
“Each” means every single candidate, no exceptions. “Shall” means it's mandatory. “From the same political party” means, well, from the same political party. Independents don't belong to a political party. So, by the clear and explicit language of Proposition 111, they are ineligible for either the office of governor or lieutenant governor.
Moreover, this is a constitutional requirement that cannot be amended or fixed by legislation.
Asserting differently doesn't make it so.
* Simplot and Paton were writing in rebuttal to a column of mine that also said that it was a dumb idea to put the administration of elections into the office of governor, as Proposition 111 would provide.
Although Proposition 111 clearly says that the lieutenant governor would assume the duties of the secretary of state, Simplot and Paton say that might not end up to be the case. The Legislature would ultimately decide.
The lieutenant governor might be in charge of economic development. Or might not. The lieutenant governor might administer elections. Or might not.
In other words, Proposition 111 proponents want to establish the office of lieutenant governor now, but have the Legislature decide later what, if anything, the office would actually do.
Now there's a plan."
Deschene opposes this proposition, Ken Bennett, in the debate, declared neutrality, but seems inclined to support it.
To be honest, I could probably care less which of these candidates monitors our elections (the primary responsibility of Secretary of State), I do care, however, which of these ends up as our next governor if something should happen to the elected one. However, I have no idea which candidate would make a better governor and this debate did little to help me with that.
Some Election Updates Part II
This post is more of the national variety, but the Republican party just pushed out their "Pledge to America and there's been a tooon of commentary about it already.
Its probably not noteworthy to say there's nothing much in it. And I know its too much to ask that they would put serious policy in a document like that especially if they will probably win a lot of seats back no matter what they do this election time.
But just so everyone is perfectly clear that the Republicans are not really serious about balancing the budget check out this commentary:
"On taxes, it promises to 'stop all job-killing tax hikes' -- that is, to retain all of the Bush tax cuts-- but says nothing about the comprehensive tax reform that will be needed to raise new revenues and balance the budget without avoidable damage to growth. The Pledge maintains the pretence that spending cuts can do all the necessary fiscal lifting -- and even here it is slippery. It promises to 'roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels', which seems fair enough. But it also promises 'common-sense' exceptions for "seniors, veterans, and our troops". Those common-sense exceptions are the whole ball of wax. The idea that you can control public borrowing without higher taxes and by squeezing only non-defense discretionary spending is, I'm afraid, delusional."
And this is the troubling part about the Republican party right now. They claim they can balance the budget by cutting taxes. They talk the talk about their drive to cut government spending, but they lack any serious proposals on how to do so. And then demogogue the Democrats who really tried to inject modest Medicare cuts in the health care bill.
I wish we had a saner political environment right now.
Its probably not noteworthy to say there's nothing much in it. And I know its too much to ask that they would put serious policy in a document like that especially if they will probably win a lot of seats back no matter what they do this election time.
But just so everyone is perfectly clear that the Republicans are not really serious about balancing the budget check out this commentary:
"On taxes, it promises to 'stop all job-killing tax hikes' -- that is, to retain all of the Bush tax cuts-- but says nothing about the comprehensive tax reform that will be needed to raise new revenues and balance the budget without avoidable damage to growth. The Pledge maintains the pretence that spending cuts can do all the necessary fiscal lifting -- and even here it is slippery. It promises to 'roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels', which seems fair enough. But it also promises 'common-sense' exceptions for "seniors, veterans, and our troops". Those common-sense exceptions are the whole ball of wax. The idea that you can control public borrowing without higher taxes and by squeezing only non-defense discretionary spending is, I'm afraid, delusional."
And this is the troubling part about the Republican party right now. They claim they can balance the budget by cutting taxes. They talk the talk about their drive to cut government spending, but they lack any serious proposals on how to do so. And then demogogue the Democrats who really tried to inject modest Medicare cuts in the health care bill.
I wish we had a saner political environment right now.
Some Election Day Updates
So, It's a busy season. We're really trying to raise money for JDRF and I'm trying to get ultra-informed about the incoming election and doing my part to inform whoever else who might be reading these blogs.
I wanted to link in Robert Robb's opinions on the Superintendent of public instruction.
In his opinion, he feels both candidates are solid:
"The nominees of both parties, Republican John Huppenthal and Democrat Penny Kotterman, were well informed and articulate. The exchange was, as the contestants described it, spirited, but very constructive.
This race features what competitive democracy promises but rarely delivers: a clear policy choice, honestly conveyed and debated, between two candidates well-qualified to deliver on what voters decide."
and
"Huppenthal is a longtime state legislator who has specialized in education issues. He's also a policy geek who likes to wallow in data.
Huppenthal is as informed a champion for conservative education reform as the state could ask for. His general approach would be to improve student performance through better and more comprehensive accountability measures.
Kotterman is a longtime teacher. She's steeped in educational policy matters through her activities with the Arizona Education Association, including a stint as its president.
Her general approach is more traditional. According to her, teachers need more support and money to do a better job. She doesn't oppose accountability but is skeptical about basing it principally on student performance on standardized tests, rather than a more holistic approach."
Robb prefers Huppenthal's approach. I guess I prefer's Kotterman's approach, but it seems to me if the choice is between a long time educator and a long time legislator who specialized in education the educator would be the one to choose. But, maybe I'm missing something here.
I wanted to link in Robert Robb's opinions on the Superintendent of public instruction.
In his opinion, he feels both candidates are solid:
"The nominees of both parties, Republican John Huppenthal and Democrat Penny Kotterman, were well informed and articulate. The exchange was, as the contestants described it, spirited, but very constructive.
This race features what competitive democracy promises but rarely delivers: a clear policy choice, honestly conveyed and debated, between two candidates well-qualified to deliver on what voters decide."
and
"Huppenthal is a longtime state legislator who has specialized in education issues. He's also a policy geek who likes to wallow in data.
Huppenthal is as informed a champion for conservative education reform as the state could ask for. His general approach would be to improve student performance through better and more comprehensive accountability measures.
Kotterman is a longtime teacher. She's steeped in educational policy matters through her activities with the Arizona Education Association, including a stint as its president.
Her general approach is more traditional. According to her, teachers need more support and money to do a better job. She doesn't oppose accountability but is skeptical about basing it principally on student performance on standardized tests, rather than a more holistic approach."
Robb prefers Huppenthal's approach. I guess I prefer's Kotterman's approach, but it seems to me if the choice is between a long time educator and a long time legislator who specialized in education the educator would be the one to choose. But, maybe I'm missing something here.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debates
Ok, I started watching this debate with some bias. The Republican candidate is John Huppenthal who has spent the last 17 years in the state legislature, a lot of that working in education committees. So, I probably dismissed his qualifications a bit. If you google his name on the web, top on the list is the link to his interview with the Corono High School student. According to wikipedia:
"As Wagner continued questioning him, Huppenthal stood up and left the room to retrieve more information about the vote, eventually returning to the interview. A video of the interview which was edited to exclude Huppenthal's return received wide circulation on the internet."
So, even the interview wasn't quite as bad as it appears, although he should have been much better prepared than he was.
Having said that, Penny Kotterman, is the superior candidate. While Huppenthal has been in the state legislature, Kotterman has been in the classroom since 1978, working as an educator at every level.
This difference in experience shows in the debate. Huppenthal takes the more Republican ideological positions pretty consistently. For example, with school reform, his focus is on high stakes testing and "accountability" and keeps referencing data from the most recent research. He talks a decent game and he makes good points, but it sounds like someone whose read a lot about education, not someone who has had first hand experience with it.
Kotterman on the other hand understands teaching from the perspective of one whose pursued it as a long term professional. Its literally been her career. An educator becomes better as they gain experience, staying abreast of the latest research, and continually improving. Diane Ravitch makes this point clearly in her book. Huppenthal seems to come from the mindset popular in today's political class today (especially among Republicans) that anybody can teach as long as they apply a kind of formulaic research based formula against it (granted this is a cynical interpretation of their viewpoint) and more people should have easy access to the profession. You see that as people from business try to use "school reform" as a way to inject business and free market principles and competition into our schools with very poor results.
I think its interesting that Mr. Huppenthal, again from a qualifications point of view, has an engineering degree and a MBA and now he considers himself an expert on schools.
The most poignant part of the debate for me was when they entered the phonics verses whole language debate. Huppenthal describes whole language as something that has been "nuclear bombed" by research. Kotterman explains that there is no one way to teach reading. A teacher uses every tool in her toolbox to teach a child.
Huppenthal's view makes sense from someone whose read about reading in a book. Kotterman's point of view comes from someone whose actually done it.
In my experience, with our kids, Kotterman's perspective is more accurate. Phonics is really important, but so is exposure to vocabulary and simply just surrounding your kids with words and with stories and with books. Ultimately they have to recognize the words on the page and get beyond working through each letter's sound, and I believe (though I'm not sure) that's basically what whole language is all about.
Personally, I think Kotterman is by far the superior candidate in this election.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Qualifications for Elected Office?
I'm a software developer by profession and I work at a software company. We are currently in the hiring process so I've been involved in interviews. At many software houses, the interviewing process is pretty intense, probably more so now than normal because of the economy. But you don't want to hire an unqualified candidate because its expensive to train someone and there's a significant difference between a really great worker and a dismal one and it's hard to let someone go once they're hired. So, many companies error on the side of not hiring someone whose qualified in order to avoid hiring someone who is not.
But its really not rocket science to pass these interviews. There are some basic, core computer science skills that we look for - knowledge of the language, knowledge of data structures (trees, linked lists, arrays, hash tables), ability to solve algorithm problems. These are all fundamental skills, but we want to make sure the candidate really knows how to program and has a deep enough knowledge of the software profession. Does that mean that every one we hire will be an all star? No, but at least we have some level of confidence that they should make a reasonably strong enough contribution.
So, really as voters in a political election, we are in essence interviewing our elected officials. We are involved in the hiring process. I'm wondering what are those basic skill sets that a politician has to have to be considered minimally qualified for an elected office? If a candidate cannot show proficiency in these skills, they should be summarily dismissed regardless of ideology. Here's my quick list:
1) Public speaking skills - this is why the debates matter. I want to see how an elected official performs under pressure. Can they sell themselves, can they sell the issues they believe in? Do they seem capable and able to work with other people to drive consensus. Maybe for some offices, this matters less than others. Maybe the State Treasurer can be a little weak in this area if they show strengths in budgets, not sure.
But our Governor, Attorney General, legislative positions. They don't have to be Martin Luther King Jr, but they should show competency. Which is why Jan Brewer's performance should be more of an issue than it may turn out to be. Granted, its just one gaffe and she has shown herself reasonably competent elsewhere, but surely this is a concern.
And its why, if you watched the LD17 debates, there are only three candidates running for the house: The two Democrats: Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo and Steve May on the Republican ticket. The other Republican running was awful, same for the green and libertarian candidates. They were just wasting my time and they took time away from the other candidates. I really wanted to hear more back and forth among the top 3.
2) Command of the Issues - This goes without saying right? You should have a solid grasp of the issues relevant o the office you're running for. This is exactly why Sarah Palin was a sham candidate. And again, this is why debates matter, this is a candidate's chance to show command of the issues. And in the debates, I want good questions and thoughtful answers. I want to see that the candidate has been thinking about these issues for a long time and shows some signs that they have experience grappling with the issues in the real world. This is why I wish every candidate would agree to as many debates as possible, and I wish voters would punish candidates who refuse to do at least a minimum number of them. Politicians should also be punished if they resort to superficial talking points.
The presidential candidates participated in countless numbers in the run-up to the 2008 elections. And having a lot of chance to engage with each other forced presidential candidates into substance. I loved it and I tried to watch every one.
3) Ethics - Despite what libertarians and libertarian leading Republicans may think, politicians matter. These positions are important and a bad politician can do real damage to our state and our nation. We should be choosing from the best each party has to offer. Do we need to know about every mistake a politician has made? No, but we want to know if the candidate has the people as her priority and not the power or prestige of office. People change and I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but its fair to bring up , but its fair for the voters to be made aware of them. Again, this is why debates matter because it gives the opposing candidate an opportunity to bring up evidence of ethical concerns.
And, yes, Ben Quayle, your public postings on questionable website matter. Voters may choose to overlook these (and in some cases deservedly so), but they are points to consider, and voters need to know about Tom Horne's SEC violations for example. Do they make Tom Horne unelectable? Not necessarily, but its fair to bring up. Also it's also why Bill Clinton's indiscretions were concerning (although the Republicans took the witch hunt way too far).
I think that's about it (off the top of my head). The best case scenario is when both parties nominate qualified competent candidates who know the issues, who are capable of defending them, and we get interesting, deep and substantive debates, to the point where I can say, well, I prefer this candidate because my views are aligned closer to their positions, but either way, Arizona is probably going to be pretty well served.
I'm not sure this happens often enough, and it definitely doesn't seem to be happening in this election.
But its really not rocket science to pass these interviews. There are some basic, core computer science skills that we look for - knowledge of the language, knowledge of data structures (trees, linked lists, arrays, hash tables), ability to solve algorithm problems. These are all fundamental skills, but we want to make sure the candidate really knows how to program and has a deep enough knowledge of the software profession. Does that mean that every one we hire will be an all star? No, but at least we have some level of confidence that they should make a reasonably strong enough contribution.
So, really as voters in a political election, we are in essence interviewing our elected officials. We are involved in the hiring process. I'm wondering what are those basic skill sets that a politician has to have to be considered minimally qualified for an elected office? If a candidate cannot show proficiency in these skills, they should be summarily dismissed regardless of ideology. Here's my quick list:
1) Public speaking skills - this is why the debates matter. I want to see how an elected official performs under pressure. Can they sell themselves, can they sell the issues they believe in? Do they seem capable and able to work with other people to drive consensus. Maybe for some offices, this matters less than others. Maybe the State Treasurer can be a little weak in this area if they show strengths in budgets, not sure.
But our Governor, Attorney General, legislative positions. They don't have to be Martin Luther King Jr, but they should show competency. Which is why Jan Brewer's performance should be more of an issue than it may turn out to be. Granted, its just one gaffe and she has shown herself reasonably competent elsewhere, but surely this is a concern.
And its why, if you watched the LD17 debates, there are only three candidates running for the house: The two Democrats: Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo and Steve May on the Republican ticket. The other Republican running was awful, same for the green and libertarian candidates. They were just wasting my time and they took time away from the other candidates. I really wanted to hear more back and forth among the top 3.
2) Command of the Issues - This goes without saying right? You should have a solid grasp of the issues relevant o the office you're running for. This is exactly why Sarah Palin was a sham candidate. And again, this is why debates matter, this is a candidate's chance to show command of the issues. And in the debates, I want good questions and thoughtful answers. I want to see that the candidate has been thinking about these issues for a long time and shows some signs that they have experience grappling with the issues in the real world. This is why I wish every candidate would agree to as many debates as possible, and I wish voters would punish candidates who refuse to do at least a minimum number of them. Politicians should also be punished if they resort to superficial talking points.
The presidential candidates participated in countless numbers in the run-up to the 2008 elections. And having a lot of chance to engage with each other forced presidential candidates into substance. I loved it and I tried to watch every one.
3) Ethics - Despite what libertarians and libertarian leading Republicans may think, politicians matter. These positions are important and a bad politician can do real damage to our state and our nation. We should be choosing from the best each party has to offer. Do we need to know about every mistake a politician has made? No, but we want to know if the candidate has the people as her priority and not the power or prestige of office. People change and I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but its fair to bring up , but its fair for the voters to be made aware of them. Again, this is why debates matter because it gives the opposing candidate an opportunity to bring up evidence of ethical concerns.
And, yes, Ben Quayle, your public postings on questionable website matter. Voters may choose to overlook these (and in some cases deservedly so), but they are points to consider, and voters need to know about Tom Horne's SEC violations for example. Do they make Tom Horne unelectable? Not necessarily, but its fair to bring up. Also it's also why Bill Clinton's indiscretions were concerning (although the Republicans took the witch hunt way too far).
I think that's about it (off the top of my head). The best case scenario is when both parties nominate qualified competent candidates who know the issues, who are capable of defending them, and we get interesting, deep and substantive debates, to the point where I can say, well, I prefer this candidate because my views are aligned closer to their positions, but either way, Arizona is probably going to be pretty well served.
I'm not sure this happens often enough, and it definitely doesn't seem to be happening in this election.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Legislative District 17 Debates
Interested in the full two hours? Check it out here.
The Senate debate takes up the first 30+ minutes. Unfortunately, only the Democratic candidate, David Schapira bothered to show up. He was an incumbent in the House, now he's running for the Senate.
His opponent Wendy Rogers posted on facebook: " Stayed out late this evening going door-to-door . . . 7 precincts left to go. Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance. Shouldn't it be about what the voter wants and not the candidate?"
What? That is weak. Here's her website. Just quickly glancing at her bio, she seems like an impressive person. Its baffling why she would not want to show up to the debates. Here's "random musing's explanation:
"Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed 'Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother,' not only did she circle 'Support,' she expanded upon that answer by adding 'Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother.'"
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale."
Ok, so about Schapira:
First, some background: He's been a high school teacher and now teaches at ASU. His focus has been with education and wants to work across the aisle and has, signing 2 bills in the past year into law that relate to education. What were they? I'm interested. He owns two small businesses. Apparently, being a small business owner, a member or former member of the military, or a teacher or all of the above are prerequisites for a political career :-), sorry Shapira only 2 out of 3 for you.
Shapira's campaign motto should be let's avoid being "penny wise, pound foolish". He uses this phrase to pound our current Republican dominated legislature particularly pointing to the cutting of kid's care (providing health care to children of poor families) and all day kindergarten.
He uses this phrase again in the notion of preserving and maintaining our state parks - this is important because you want to keep our state beautiful and interesting if you want to attract people - people who will move here or visit here. Drastically important in keeping our economy vibrant.
His take on where our legislature blew it:
- A CAP was placed on the rainy day fund and the money was given in tax breaks. I think I remember this, but have forgotten. The rainy day fund has been an issue I've mentioned before that we need to save during boom times so we can spend counter-cyclically during busts.
- Arizona has given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest (Democrats always say that, but Republicans do seem to support those believing the rich are the drivers for our economy and should do as little funding of government services as possible, since they magically know how to spend their money better than the rest of us)
Some additional highlites:
He made the point that the worst things you can do in tough economic times is to raise the sells tax which is an attack agaisnt Brewer's sales tax proposition. Well, since that debate, the Republic claims that the sales tax has not decreased spending. Probably because small hikes in the tax rate applied broadly are not enough to change the behavior of consumers - the price hikes were not noticed in other words.
His main point, over and over again, was on education - to protect educational spending. He ripped the legislature for cutting $2 billion in funding to our schools over the last two years. And the made the interesting point that, again, Brewer's sales tax proposition was really a threat. You don't pass it and we'll cut schools further, to the tune of $800 million. I knew that, still voted for it :-).
My overall impression was that David Schapira was impressive, passionate and had a strong command of the issues. He definitely has my vote and support this election.
And still I'm baffled that Wendy Rogers chose not to show up. Maybe she believes the ones with the largest and most yard signs deserves to win the election. I'm wondering if people out there vote on that metric.
By the way, I will listen to the rest of the debate, which will focus on the candidates running for the two up for grabs house seats and post later.
The Senate debate takes up the first 30+ minutes. Unfortunately, only the Democratic candidate, David Schapira bothered to show up. He was an incumbent in the House, now he's running for the Senate.
His opponent Wendy Rogers posted on facebook: " Stayed out late this evening going door-to-door . . . 7 precincts left to go. Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance. Shouldn't it be about what the voter wants and not the candidate?"
What? That is weak. Here's her website. Just quickly glancing at her bio, she seems like an impressive person. Its baffling why she would not want to show up to the debates. Here's "random musing's explanation:
"Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed 'Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother,' not only did she circle 'Support,' she expanded upon that answer by adding 'Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother.'"
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale."
Ok, so about Schapira:
First, some background: He's been a high school teacher and now teaches at ASU. His focus has been with education and wants to work across the aisle and has, signing 2 bills in the past year into law that relate to education. What were they? I'm interested. He owns two small businesses. Apparently, being a small business owner, a member or former member of the military, or a teacher or all of the above are prerequisites for a political career :-), sorry Shapira only 2 out of 3 for you.
Shapira's campaign motto should be let's avoid being "penny wise, pound foolish". He uses this phrase to pound our current Republican dominated legislature particularly pointing to the cutting of kid's care (providing health care to children of poor families) and all day kindergarten.
He uses this phrase again in the notion of preserving and maintaining our state parks - this is important because you want to keep our state beautiful and interesting if you want to attract people - people who will move here or visit here. Drastically important in keeping our economy vibrant.
His take on where our legislature blew it:
- A CAP was placed on the rainy day fund and the money was given in tax breaks. I think I remember this, but have forgotten. The rainy day fund has been an issue I've mentioned before that we need to save during boom times so we can spend counter-cyclically during busts.
- Arizona has given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest (Democrats always say that, but Republicans do seem to support those believing the rich are the drivers for our economy and should do as little funding of government services as possible, since they magically know how to spend their money better than the rest of us)
Some additional highlites:
He made the point that the worst things you can do in tough economic times is to raise the sells tax which is an attack agaisnt Brewer's sales tax proposition. Well, since that debate, the Republic claims that the sales tax has not decreased spending. Probably because small hikes in the tax rate applied broadly are not enough to change the behavior of consumers - the price hikes were not noticed in other words.
His main point, over and over again, was on education - to protect educational spending. He ripped the legislature for cutting $2 billion in funding to our schools over the last two years. And the made the interesting point that, again, Brewer's sales tax proposition was really a threat. You don't pass it and we'll cut schools further, to the tune of $800 million. I knew that, still voted for it :-).
My overall impression was that David Schapira was impressive, passionate and had a strong command of the issues. He definitely has my vote and support this election.
And still I'm baffled that Wendy Rogers chose not to show up. Maybe she believes the ones with the largest and most yard signs deserves to win the election. I'm wondering if people out there vote on that metric.
By the way, I will listen to the rest of the debate, which will focus on the candidates running for the two up for grabs house seats and post later.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Huppenthal wins the nomination - what???
So, you have two candidates running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Here's the first candidate's resume:
- Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, Masters in Business
- Eight years a city councilman
- Eight years as a State Senator
- Four years as a State Representative
- Six more years as a State Senator
All pretty impressive but none of it all that related to schools.
The second candidate's resume:
- Bachelors in Education
- Taught English at Glendale High School for 12 years
- Received the Achievement Above All Award
- Served as a teacher mentor for Washington High School in Phoenix for three years.
- Assistant principal for student services at the school for three years.
- Served for 10 years as principal of Glendale High School.
- Recognized as one of the nation's top principals.
- For one year, served at the district office level as administrator for curriculum and instruction.
- She was appointed to the position of Advisor to the Arizona Superintendent of Public Education and later to the Associate Superintendent for Academic Achievement at the Arizona Department of Education.
- Later she was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction.
In summary, one is a career politician with no experience in schools the other is a lifelong educator. They are running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
And the first candidate responds to a high school student this way:
Would you be shocked that the first candidate wins.... by a landslide.
Huppenthal does have better and more signs all over the state. Does Arizona even care about education?
Here's the first candidate's resume:
- Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, Masters in Business
- Eight years a city councilman
- Eight years as a State Senator
- Four years as a State Representative
- Six more years as a State Senator
All pretty impressive but none of it all that related to schools.
The second candidate's resume:
- Bachelors in Education
- Taught English at Glendale High School for 12 years
- Received the Achievement Above All Award
- Served as a teacher mentor for Washington High School in Phoenix for three years.
- Assistant principal for student services at the school for three years.
- Served for 10 years as principal of Glendale High School.
- Recognized as one of the nation's top principals.
- For one year, served at the district office level as administrator for curriculum and instruction.
- She was appointed to the position of Advisor to the Arizona Superintendent of Public Education and later to the Associate Superintendent for Academic Achievement at the Arizona Department of Education.
- Later she was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction.
In summary, one is a career politician with no experience in schools the other is a lifelong educator. They are running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
And the first candidate responds to a high school student this way:
Would you be shocked that the first candidate wins.... by a landslide.
Huppenthal does have better and more signs all over the state. Does Arizona even care about education?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
I want to go local
We're living in a globalized world and I'm working for a global company and I follow primarily national news and I shop mostly at stores with global reach and I hardly know my neighbors and most of contact my friends on facebook more than I do in person and my family mostly lives all over the country.
And I can relate to this:
"I love the View From Your Window contest. But not because I have a snowball's chance in Hades of guessing the location. But because I don't. One thing the contest gives me is a complete awareness of A) Just how smart your readers are (myself excluded) and B) They've been places I've never been to, and are in places where I am not. The world comes to the Dish and suddenly I'm painfully aware of how untraveled I am."
But just because you've traveled doesn't mean you're smart and just because you have four kids (soon), one income, and don't leave your city as much as you'd like and when you do its mainly to visit family, doesn't mean you're not smart.
I voted today in the primaries and these local elections mean something. The Corporation Commission has a say in how much your utilities cost, for example. Your state legislature, governor, and school administrators affect the quality of your local schools. The treasurer, legislatures and governor affect how well state funds are managed. All of this matters, tremendously.
I spent a lot of time last night trying to come up with educated decisions because the primaries matter. In at least one key election (county attorney) there is no Democratic challenger, and Rick Romley is by far the superior choice. But the fact is I waited until the night before the election to start paying attention. And each election deserved more time and research than I spent on it.
But hardly anyone voted at all, probably because this information is not in front of them often enough.
I really want to go local. Find ways to leverage global technologies, like google, facebook, paypal, eBay, etc. to build applications that matter locally. I want to frequent more local businesses. I want to get to know my neighbors more profoundly. Ultimately, I would love to work for a local, small company.
And travel is nice. But if you travel too much, perhaps you never notice the gems hidden all around you. I read this novel recently that made the point that even in the most rural city, they still have a library - so rich in information that you could never absorb all of its contents in a lifetime.
How many people living in the Phoenix area have visted The Heard Museum, The Phoenix Art Museum or the other many museums that scatter our valley. Or more poignantly, have you been to the First Friday art walk to see what your local artists are up to?
My only point is that you could never leave the state and see some mind blowingly beautiful things.
I love to travel, don't get me wrong, and I hope to get more opportunities to do so. But I think there are so many problems to be solved, lives to touch, and opportunities to take advantage of in one's own family, neighborhood, and community to fill many lifetimes.
So, I have too much globalism in my life. I want to go local.
And I can relate to this:
"I love the View From Your Window contest. But not because I have a snowball's chance in Hades of guessing the location. But because I don't. One thing the contest gives me is a complete awareness of A) Just how smart your readers are (myself excluded) and B) They've been places I've never been to, and are in places where I am not. The world comes to the Dish and suddenly I'm painfully aware of how untraveled I am."
But just because you've traveled doesn't mean you're smart and just because you have four kids (soon), one income, and don't leave your city as much as you'd like and when you do its mainly to visit family, doesn't mean you're not smart.
I voted today in the primaries and these local elections mean something. The Corporation Commission has a say in how much your utilities cost, for example. Your state legislature, governor, and school administrators affect the quality of your local schools. The treasurer, legislatures and governor affect how well state funds are managed. All of this matters, tremendously.
I spent a lot of time last night trying to come up with educated decisions because the primaries matter. In at least one key election (county attorney) there is no Democratic challenger, and Rick Romley is by far the superior choice. But the fact is I waited until the night before the election to start paying attention. And each election deserved more time and research than I spent on it.
But hardly anyone voted at all, probably because this information is not in front of them often enough.
I really want to go local. Find ways to leverage global technologies, like google, facebook, paypal, eBay, etc. to build applications that matter locally. I want to frequent more local businesses. I want to get to know my neighbors more profoundly. Ultimately, I would love to work for a local, small company.
And travel is nice. But if you travel too much, perhaps you never notice the gems hidden all around you. I read this novel recently that made the point that even in the most rural city, they still have a library - so rich in information that you could never absorb all of its contents in a lifetime.
How many people living in the Phoenix area have visted The Heard Museum, The Phoenix Art Museum or the other many museums that scatter our valley. Or more poignantly, have you been to the First Friday art walk to see what your local artists are up to?
My only point is that you could never leave the state and see some mind blowingly beautiful things.
I love to travel, don't get me wrong, and I hope to get more opportunities to do so. But I think there are so many problems to be solved, lives to touch, and opportunities to take advantage of in one's own family, neighborhood, and community to fill many lifetimes.
So, I have too much globalism in my life. I want to go local.
Monday, August 23, 2010
My primary ballot picks
Be sure to vote, primary elections are Tuesday, August 24th.
The Arizona Republic Picks
The Arizona Republic Picks
Democratic Senate Candidates Debates
Republican Maricopa County Attorney
Republicans
Democrats
UPDATE:
Why you should not vote for Huppenthal:
The Arizona Republic Picks
The Arizona Republic Picks
Democratic Senate Candidates Debates
Republican Maricopa County Attorney
Republicans
| Position | My Selection | Brief Explanation |
| Senate | John McCain | Big no brainer - JD Hayworth would be awful as an Arizona Senator |
| US Representative District 5 | Susan Bitter Smith? | Not sure about this one, all of the candidates seem identically bad, but its probably between her and Schweikert. |
| Governor | Janet Brewer | The only real candidate left, sadly, she owes everything to Russell Pearce and HB1070. I think the office of governor covers a few more issues than one narrowly written bill. |
| Attorney General | Tom Horne | Another biiig no brainer. Andrew Thomas is terrible |
| State Treasurer | Barbara Leff | She seems to have pretty intimate knowledge of the position and seems interested in the position as it is, whereas everyone else seems to want to do way more that what a State Treasurer actually does. |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | Margaret Dugan | She has the most credentials for the job and John Hupenthal is just no good. |
| Corporation Commission | Gary Pearce and Brenda Burns | Barry Wong is disqualified with his statement to cut utilities for illegal immigrants which is to quote Robert Robb "is stunningly irresponsible and dumb. Electric utilities don't have access to the federal databases necessary to verify legal status. And each marginal electricity customer reduces the costs to others, not increase them." |
Democrats
| Position | My Selection | Brief Explanation |
| Senate | Rodney Glassman | I think his the most impressive of the candidates by a pretty big margin. |
| Secretary of State | Chris DescheneExperience? | |
| Attorney General | Felecia Rotellini | This is a convincing description: She will bring it on. In this field, she is the ferociously smart prosecutor who has clocked significant time in the courtroom taking down lawbreakers and unwinding the complex strands of financial fraud. |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | Penny Kotterman | She seems more passionate, articulate, and knowledgeable about the educational system right now. |
| Corporation Commissioner | Jorge Luis Garcia and Renz Jennings | Not a great reason other than AZ Republic endorses them. |
UPDATE:
Why you should not vote for Huppenthal:
Monday, November 3, 2008
A Few Last Minute Updates to My Votes
For Country Supervisor District 1: I am officially switching from Fulton Brock to Ed Hermes. Why? I have a good friend who actively campaigned for Ed Hermes. The Arizona Republic had nothing but good things to say about Ed, but they went with Fulton because of his experience and record. But my gut tells me that Hermes would work with more vigor to curb air polution, something that is a part of the Supervisor's job description.
And what has pushed me over the edge? Brock's despicable mailings that were misleading, irrelevant, and over the top attacks against Hermes. That Hermes was unqualified because he was once addicted to Halo? Really, that is a disqualifier? Not in my book. I'm in the Hermes camp, which just about pushes me into voting for practically a 100% Democratic ticket. Fulton Brock was one of my only Republicans.
Except I'm saved, because I am voting party line Republican for Corporation Commission:
When I initially endorsed the Democrats in a previous post, I received two pretty damning comments on these candidates. The Arizona Republic also endorsed the Republicans and made a convincing, clear cut case that the Republicans are clearly more qualified, better prepared, and more pragmatic choices for the position.
So, needless to say, I'm going with Barry Wong, Bob Stump, and Marian McClure.
Regarding the Tempe Union School Board, I'm voting based on descriptions here.
I'm going with: Donald Keuth, Michelle Helm, and Zita Johnson, the incumbents. They have been in the area longer then the challengers, and seem to have the right balance of experience between them. Johnson worked at ASU in the child study library for 25 years which is intriguing. Keuth used to work at an architectural firm that designed buildings and schools which would be helpful knowledge, and Helm worked for many years in Tempe elementary schools.
The challengers both seemed intriguing in their own ways, but both are new to the area, with shallow experience actually working in the schools, so I'm going with the incumbents.
Judges:
Helena prompted me to look again at the judges rankings and another friend convinced me of a pretty compelling strategy on how to vote for the judges.
Vote yes for all judges who received really high ratings, vote no for any that received really poor scores, skip the rest.
My No's:
Crane MClennen:
17 Commissiones voted "Does Not Meet Qualifications. Received a 60% on Judicial Temperament from a survey of Lawyers.
From netroots:
"called an "idiot savant" by some lawyers, and a "total prick" by others. Wants everything his way, sticks it to the defense as much as possible, gives prosecutors the run of the court; never admits that he has made a mistake; totally unfit."
AZ Judges Review, however, gave him a 9 and claims the Commissioners know nothing about the judges... What can I say?
Linda Akers:
Net Roots: Pro-prosecution, biased against Hispanics, heavy handed sentencing of minorities.
AZ Judges Review: 7
3 of 26 Commissioners voted does not meet, 73% Judicial Temperament among lawyers.
My Yes's:
Helene Abrams - 29 Commissioners voted "Meets", Received 98-100% from the lawyers and jurors, More than 80% from the litigants and witnesses.
Net Roots: "Was head of the Maricopa County Public Defenders Juvenile Unit, took a lot of heat when she suppressed a confession in a child molest case, Andrew Thomas was livid (my, oh, my!); not afraid to put the law above possible adverse publicity; generally an outstanding judge. "
John Dittsworth:
Netroots: Former county attorney who couldn't get along with Andrew Thomas; progressive, fair, a straight shooter; keeps the prosecutors on a short leash.
AZ Judges Review: Rating 9
29 Commissioners Voted Meets
Ok, this strategy of looking at Netroors, AZ Judges Review, and the Commissioners recommendations just isn't working. By the way, the Commissioners only recommended a No vote on one judge, and that judge received a resounding endorsement from AZ Judges Review.
I just don't think I know enough to vote, and unlike Helena, I'm just not ready to vote every single judge out at this point...
There you have it.
And what has pushed me over the edge? Brock's despicable mailings that were misleading, irrelevant, and over the top attacks against Hermes. That Hermes was unqualified because he was once addicted to Halo? Really, that is a disqualifier? Not in my book. I'm in the Hermes camp, which just about pushes me into voting for practically a 100% Democratic ticket. Fulton Brock was one of my only Republicans.
Except I'm saved, because I am voting party line Republican for Corporation Commission:
When I initially endorsed the Democrats in a previous post, I received two pretty damning comments on these candidates. The Arizona Republic also endorsed the Republicans and made a convincing, clear cut case that the Republicans are clearly more qualified, better prepared, and more pragmatic choices for the position.
So, needless to say, I'm going with Barry Wong, Bob Stump, and Marian McClure.
Regarding the Tempe Union School Board, I'm voting based on descriptions here.
I'm going with: Donald Keuth, Michelle Helm, and Zita Johnson, the incumbents. They have been in the area longer then the challengers, and seem to have the right balance of experience between them. Johnson worked at ASU in the child study library for 25 years which is intriguing. Keuth used to work at an architectural firm that designed buildings and schools which would be helpful knowledge, and Helm worked for many years in Tempe elementary schools.
The challengers both seemed intriguing in their own ways, but both are new to the area, with shallow experience actually working in the schools, so I'm going with the incumbents.
Judges:
Helena prompted me to look again at the judges rankings and another friend convinced me of a pretty compelling strategy on how to vote for the judges.
Vote yes for all judges who received really high ratings, vote no for any that received really poor scores, skip the rest.
My No's:
Crane MClennen:
17 Commissiones voted "Does Not Meet Qualifications. Received a 60% on Judicial Temperament from a survey of Lawyers.
From netroots:
"called an "idiot savant" by some lawyers, and a "total prick" by others. Wants everything his way, sticks it to the defense as much as possible, gives prosecutors the run of the court; never admits that he has made a mistake; totally unfit."
AZ Judges Review, however, gave him a 9 and claims the Commissioners know nothing about the judges... What can I say?
Linda Akers:
Net Roots: Pro-prosecution, biased against Hispanics, heavy handed sentencing of minorities.
AZ Judges Review: 7
3 of 26 Commissioners voted does not meet, 73% Judicial Temperament among lawyers.
My Yes's:
Helene Abrams - 29 Commissioners voted "Meets", Received 98-100% from the lawyers and jurors, More than 80% from the litigants and witnesses.
Net Roots: "Was head of the Maricopa County Public Defenders Juvenile Unit, took a lot of heat when she suppressed a confession in a child molest case, Andrew Thomas was livid (my, oh, my!); not afraid to put the law above possible adverse publicity; generally an outstanding judge. "
John Dittsworth:
Netroots: Former county attorney who couldn't get along with Andrew Thomas; progressive, fair, a straight shooter; keeps the prosecutors on a short leash.
AZ Judges Review: Rating 9
29 Commissioners Voted Meets
Ok, this strategy of looking at Netroors, AZ Judges Review, and the Commissioners recommendations just isn't working. By the way, the Commissioners only recommended a No vote on one judge, and that judge received a resounding endorsement from AZ Judges Review.
I just don't think I know enough to vote, and unlike Helena, I'm just not ready to vote every single judge out at this point...
There you have it.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Local Elections
I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, decided how my entire ballot is going to be filled out this year. I'm currently a registered Democrat (surprise, surprise), but I really consider myself an independent. I just feel that the current version of the two parties, the Democrats seem the more pragmatic party of the two. In fact, our current Congress has an ever shrinking supply of moderate conservatives...
But put a gun to my head, and force me to make my choices right now? Here's how I would go, but for many of these, I'm very much in need of more information before I can make my final decision. And I will get informed... at least as best as I can.
Really someday soon, I want to get into a position where I can track in real time the votes of my legislature. I hope to be much better informed in the near future.
Ok, here it goes.
The Propositions
Proposition 100: Protect Our Homes
This proposition prohibits a sales or a transfer tax on any real estate sale. Currently there are no taxes.
My vote: No. Want to keep tax flexibility with the government...
Proposition 101: Patient Choice Measure
This bill is a preemptive proposition ahead of possible health care legislation providing comprehensive government backed health care insurance. Something Barack Obama has pushed as a central piece to his campaign.
The guts of the proposition is to make sure patients can choose any kind of health care plan that they want.
My vote: No, its solving a problem that currently does not exist (similar to the one above).
Marriage Protection Ammendment
I already addressed this one here and here.
I do want to add that Google has come out against a similar bill in California. I understand both sides of the argument, but like I said, this is primarily a freedom of religion issue for me.
My vote: Yes
Proposition 105: Tax Relief or the End of Initiatives
This proposition will basically end propositions because it will raise the standard of passing a passing a proposition incredibly high (basically all registered voters who don't vote will be counted as a no vote).
My vote: No
Proposition 200: Payday Load Reform Act
This ballot will expand the law allowing pay day loans indefinitely, but will provide further regulation.
The interest rates on payday loans are crazy high, and this proposition is sponsored by PayDay loan companies. In my gut, I hate these sort of companies, but I recognize some people may really depend on them.
My vote: No
Proposition 201: Homeowners Bill of Rights
This one adds new regulation to home construction, longer warranties, new rights on fixing defects, etc.
I have not studies this near enough, but a gun has been placed on my head, so I must vote:
My vote: Yes
Proposition 202: Stop Illegal Hiring
This proposition is actually misleading. It actually relaxes the restrictions of earlier propositions making it easier for employers to higher illegal workers in two important ways:
1) Proposition 202 provides that a state, county or local official, in attempting to verify with the federal government if a person is authorized to work in the United States, is to rely solely upon the processes and procedures set forth in federal law. The federal law is weaker than what Arizona law currently requires.
2) Prohibits those who report illegal hiring from doing it anonymously.
I'm a big believer in immigration, and I believe our current immigration laws are a complete joke. Therefore, I support any proposition that loosens the restrictions and oppose any that tighten them.
My vote: Yes
Proposition 300: Legislative Pay Increase
This sort of proposition shows up almost every single time, and it seems to get voted down almost every single time. Give them a raise already. You get what you pay for.
My vote: Yes
Candidates
President: John McCain/Sarah Palin vs Barack Obama/Joe Biden
My vote: Obama/Biden, duh.
Congress: Democrat Harry Mitchell vs. Republican David Schweikert
Mitchell has only been in office two years, and is a moderate democrat with a long record in Tempe (high school teacher at Tempe High for years and years, Tempe mayor, state legislature, now congressman).
While I hate his vote on the bailout (he voted no), I'll give him two more years. By all accounts, Schweikert is a principled conservative, although a pretty extreme one.
My vote: Mitchell
State Representative: Democrats: David Shapira, Ed Ableser vs. Republicans: Mark Thompson, Wesley Waddle
I know very little about these guys.
My vote (with a gun at my head): Shapira, Ableser
State Senate: Democrat: Meg Burton Cahill vs. Republican: Jesse Hernandez
Again, too little info currently.
My vote: Cahill
County Supervisor: Democrat: Ed Hermes v. Republican Fulton Brock
I'm clueless. Fulton Brock is the incumbent... That's all I know at the moment.
My vote: Fulton Brock
Corporation Commission: Democrats: Paul Newman, Rebecca Schneider, Sam George, Sandra Kennedy, Republicans: Bob Stump, Barry Wong, Marian McClure
The Democrats are making a strong push for much more solar energy. The Republicans want to leave more room for energy diversity.
I'm all in for solar:
My vote: Newman, Schneider, George.
This could change easily because I probably want a mix...
Maricopa County Attorney: Democrat Tim Nelson v. Republican Andrew Thomas
I hate Thomas extremist views generally, especially on immigration.
My vote: Nelson
Sheriff: Dan Saban vs. Sherriff Joe
Joe must go:
My vote: Dan Saban
There are other offices, but these are the major ones. I'll address the rest in another post. I'll also be updating these selections as I know more.
I would also like to know your opinions...
But put a gun to my head, and force me to make my choices right now? Here's how I would go, but for many of these, I'm very much in need of more information before I can make my final decision. And I will get informed... at least as best as I can.
Really someday soon, I want to get into a position where I can track in real time the votes of my legislature. I hope to be much better informed in the near future.
Ok, here it goes.
The Propositions
Proposition 100: Protect Our Homes
This proposition prohibits a sales or a transfer tax on any real estate sale. Currently there are no taxes.
My vote: No. Want to keep tax flexibility with the government...
Proposition 101: Patient Choice Measure
This bill is a preemptive proposition ahead of possible health care legislation providing comprehensive government backed health care insurance. Something Barack Obama has pushed as a central piece to his campaign.
The guts of the proposition is to make sure patients can choose any kind of health care plan that they want.
My vote: No, its solving a problem that currently does not exist (similar to the one above).
Marriage Protection Ammendment
I already addressed this one here and here.
I do want to add that Google has come out against a similar bill in California. I understand both sides of the argument, but like I said, this is primarily a freedom of religion issue for me.
My vote: Yes
Proposition 105: Tax Relief or the End of Initiatives
This proposition will basically end propositions because it will raise the standard of passing a passing a proposition incredibly high (basically all registered voters who don't vote will be counted as a no vote).
My vote: No
Proposition 200: Payday Load Reform Act
This ballot will expand the law allowing pay day loans indefinitely, but will provide further regulation.
The interest rates on payday loans are crazy high, and this proposition is sponsored by PayDay loan companies. In my gut, I hate these sort of companies, but I recognize some people may really depend on them.
My vote: No
Proposition 201: Homeowners Bill of Rights
This one adds new regulation to home construction, longer warranties, new rights on fixing defects, etc.
I have not studies this near enough, but a gun has been placed on my head, so I must vote:
My vote: Yes
Proposition 202: Stop Illegal Hiring
This proposition is actually misleading. It actually relaxes the restrictions of earlier propositions making it easier for employers to higher illegal workers in two important ways:
1) Proposition 202 provides that a state, county or local official, in attempting to verify with the federal government if a person is authorized to work in the United States, is to rely solely upon the processes and procedures set forth in federal law. The federal law is weaker than what Arizona law currently requires.
2) Prohibits those who report illegal hiring from doing it anonymously.
I'm a big believer in immigration, and I believe our current immigration laws are a complete joke. Therefore, I support any proposition that loosens the restrictions and oppose any that tighten them.
My vote: Yes
Proposition 300: Legislative Pay Increase
This sort of proposition shows up almost every single time, and it seems to get voted down almost every single time. Give them a raise already. You get what you pay for.
My vote: Yes
Candidates
President: John McCain/Sarah Palin vs Barack Obama/Joe Biden
My vote: Obama/Biden, duh.
Congress: Democrat Harry Mitchell vs. Republican David Schweikert
Mitchell has only been in office two years, and is a moderate democrat with a long record in Tempe (high school teacher at Tempe High for years and years, Tempe mayor, state legislature, now congressman).
While I hate his vote on the bailout (he voted no), I'll give him two more years. By all accounts, Schweikert is a principled conservative, although a pretty extreme one.
My vote: Mitchell
State Representative: Democrats: David Shapira, Ed Ableser vs. Republicans: Mark Thompson, Wesley Waddle
I know very little about these guys.
My vote (with a gun at my head): Shapira, Ableser
State Senate: Democrat: Meg Burton Cahill vs. Republican: Jesse Hernandez
Again, too little info currently.
My vote: Cahill
County Supervisor: Democrat: Ed Hermes v. Republican Fulton Brock
I'm clueless. Fulton Brock is the incumbent... That's all I know at the moment.
My vote: Fulton Brock
Corporation Commission: Democrats: Paul Newman, Rebecca Schneider, Sam George, Sandra Kennedy, Republicans: Bob Stump, Barry Wong, Marian McClure
The Democrats are making a strong push for much more solar energy. The Republicans want to leave more room for energy diversity.
I'm all in for solar:
My vote: Newman, Schneider, George.
This could change easily because I probably want a mix...
Maricopa County Attorney: Democrat Tim Nelson v. Republican Andrew Thomas
I hate Thomas extremist views generally, especially on immigration.
My vote: Nelson
Sheriff: Dan Saban vs. Sherriff Joe
Joe must go:
My vote: Dan Saban
There are other offices, but these are the major ones. I'll address the rest in another post. I'll also be updating these selections as I know more.
I would also like to know your opinions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)