BOB LORD

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, sounded pathetic today when he blamed the defeat of President Bush’s $700 billion bailout for Wall Street on a floor speech from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But Democrats like Bob Lord aren’t looking much better when they test where the winds are blowing and then pretend they are taking a strong stand on the hottest issue of the moment.

Lord, the challenger in the Fifth Congressional District, sent out a last-minute news release claiming the bailout has been wrong since it was first proposed a week ago. But Lord’s news release was delivered, at least to my e-mail box, at 10:53 a.m. Monday as the bailout package already was going down to defeat and the stock market plunging in response.

By contrast, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has been objecting for days to the Bush administration proposal and issued his own news release rejecting the new compromise version on Sunday afternoon, more than 12 hours before the vote took place.

Lord isn’t the only Democrat in making a political calculation about whether to support a plan that Wall Street desperately wants but has the public hopping mad. Every single House member from Arizona cast their final vote against the measure today. I can see Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords making a safe play, as they have serious Republican challengers this year. But I wonder how Reps. Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva will justify voting against their own party’s leaders and with Reps. John Shadegg and Trent Franks?

 (AP photo)

Sen. John McCain went through almost the entire debate Friday without a single mention of his days as a Vietnam POW. In fact, if the debate had ended after 90 minutes as advertised, that issue would have stayed off the stage. So maybe that’s why a Barack Obama-friendly audience in downtown Phoenix gave one of its loudest responses all night — a rolling, unified groan of disgust — when McCain managed to slip in a POW reference about five minutes into overtime.

I had already attended several election events this year around the Valley sponsored by the McCain campaign. So I decided to watch Friday’s debate from the Democratic perspective. The Obama campaign threw a viewing party outside its Arizona headquarters, a converted house that’s for sale at Roosevelt and Sixth streets. More than 130 folding chairs from the United Commercial and Food Workers union were set up in a parking lot behind the house. The campaign projected a live Web video stream from C-SPAN onto a second building facing Roosevelt. Within 30 minutes after the debate started, all of the chairs were full and more Obama fans were standing in a semi-circle behind them.

The crowd was strangely quiet through much of the debate, listening intently as Obama and McCain fired back and forth in a free-wheeling contest of which moderator Jim Lehrer lost nearly all control. Obama’s backers did loosen up with a few rounds of applause and the occasional cheer after Obama delivered some one-liners. But some people also weirdly cheered a couple of times after McCain repeated an Obama comment in order to bring home his own argument.

So, I expected a boisterous pep rally and instead attended a mostly studious affair. Ken Clark, a Democratic activist and former state lawmaker from Phoenix gave a great explanation as to why:

“It was thick, fiberous and chewy,” Clark said. “And I don’t mean that in a bad way. I don’t believe I have ever seen them get so in-depth in past presidential debates. They usually focus more on firing those zingers at each other.”

Clark was right. Obama needed to demonstrate he has command of a lot of different facts and ideas, and that he can think quickly and speak well without a Teleprompter. He succeeded, to the likely horror of many Republicans who have predicting for weeks that Obama would fall on his face in the debates.

Meanwhile, McCain went to Mississippi bristling with examples of where he has been involved in national and foreign affairs, and was determined to cram every one of them into the debate. The Democrats outside Obama’s Arizona headquarters tried to dismiss McCain’s experience as meaningless or too close to President Bush. But I though he did a great job of presenting his case to those middle-of-the-road voters expected to ultimately decide the Nov. 4 outcome.

All of this means I don’t believe there was a clear winner from Friday’s debate. I can’t wait to see and hear what other people think.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is planning another outdoor viewing party for the vice presidential debate on Thursday. I’ll say one thing, they had better figure out how to improve the video feed. The frequent freezes of the campaign’s Internet connection annoyed many in the audience, and I doubt next week’s crowd will be as patient as they were tonight. Democrats are eager to see Joe Biden tear into Sarah Palin. I wonder if she will manage to disappoint as many critics as Obama did tonight.

Connie Duncan of Chandler wrote the Tribune this week, and submitted a copy of an essay from the 1966 book “America and Americans” written by John Steinbeck. This quintessential American author clearly was fascinated by the way that we adore our presidents but at the same time place impossible demands on their shoulders. With the Nov. 4 general election rapidly approaching, Duncan asked (rhetorically?) if American voters have matured in the past 42 years. Look at this final passage from Steinbeck’s essay and tell me what you think:

“The President must be greater than anyone else, but not better than anyone else. We subject him and his family to close and constant scrutiny and denounce them for things that we ourselves do every day. A Presidential slip of the tongue, a slight error in judgment — social, political or ethical — can raise a storm of protest. We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man should take, more pressure than a man can bear. We abuse him often and rarely praise him. We wear him out, use him up, eat him up. And with all this, Americans have a love for the President that goes beyond loyalty or party nationality; he is ours, and we exercise the right to destroy him.”

 

I learned this morning that the conspicuous absence of House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Ariz., from a commission created by Gov. Janet Napolitano to plan Arizona’s centennial celebration was his choice, not the governor’s. In fact, Weiers couldn’t bother to return repeated phone calls from Napolitano’s office inviting him to join the commission as did all living former governors, Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger, D-Willcox, and House Minority Leader Phil Lopes, D-Tucson.

I tried to speak with spokespeople for both Napolitano and Weiers before writing my original blog item, but they didn’t return my phone call until after it was posted. This morning, House Republican spokesman Barrett Marson said Weiers didn’t see any point to serving on the governor’s commission as another already existed. I believe Marson is referring to one or more committees working with the state Historical Advisory Commission, which previously was designated by law to coordinate planning for the celebration of the state’s 100th birthday.

“I don’t think we need two agencies to do one job,” Marson said.

Hmm, Napolitano would have had an opportunity to explain why she was creating a new, more high-profile group to take the lead, if only Weiers had taken her phone call. One important reason, as I mentioned in my previous post, is the state needs to raise private cash quickly because of the state’s budget problems. If Napolitano can’t do it with the group of people she has assembled for her centennial commission, I’m not sure it can be done.

Weiers might have a point about Napolitano bypassing the existing government infrastructure (which she previously supported) and creating something new that she has more control over. But Weiers is supposed to be a state leader, and he comes off as petulant and petty when he couldn’t take five minutes to discuss the issue with the governor or her staff.

 
         HOUSE SPEAKER JIM WEIERS                               GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO

UPDATE: I have learned that Gov. Janet Napolitano tried to House Speaker Jim Weiers to join her new centennial commission, but Weiers ignored several phone calls from her office. You can read more about it at new blog post here.

I know there’s a lot of animosity between Gov. Janet Napolitano and Arizona House Speaker Jim Weiers, but I had no idea it went this deep. The governor’s office sent out a news release Monday explaining that back in June, Napolitano created a special commission to oversee the planning for Arizona’s centennial in 2012.

As you would expect, the commission includes a rich collection of prominent Arizona names such as all of the living former governors and Sen. Jon Kyl. (Arizona’s senior U.S. senator is missing. Perhaps he’s too busy doing something else, a task that Napolitano hopes he fails at.) 

The list also includes the top leaders of this year’s Arizona Legislature from both parties, except for Weiers. Since Napolitano has taken the title of commission co-chairwoman, I guess she couldn’t stand the idea of sharing even a smidge of the spotlight and attention with one of her biggest critics. Even for Arizona’s one and only 100th birthday party.

That’s a shame, too, as Napolitano and company will need every bit of help they can get to raise private money to put on a decent show in less than three years. The state budget is awash in red ink and probably will be for awhile. The only cash that’s going to be available for a birthday bash to be proud of will have to come from the private sector.

That’s why Napolitano has stacked the commission with lots of business allies, and she will lean on them to bring in money from their own companies and from other businesses in their respective circles. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s how other states have celebrated their centennials and it’s certainly better than leaving taxpayers with an even bigger fiscal hangover.

But Weiers has lots of business allies as well, and he knows how to twist arms to raise money for the right cause. Napolitano, and the rest of state, likely will regret it later if Weiers isn’t actively involved with planning the centennial.

      RUSSELL PEARCE

I wasn’t able to attend Thursday’s legislative candidate forum for District 18 in Mesa. But reading between the lines in Tribune writer Sonu Munshi’s coverage, I think Pearce still wishes he was running for Congress this fall instead of the Arizona Senate.

Pearce seriously considered challenging incumbent Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in the primary because Flake has been a proponent of immigration reform that would provide an opportunity for otherwise law-abiding immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally to remain here. But Pearce found out when he tested the waters that running for Congress is a whole different ballgame than running for the Legislature. Access to cash, and lots of it, is much more important in a congressional campaign, although some East Valley Democrats want to believe I don’t know what I talking about.

Flake’s warchest is well-stocked and Pearce learned he would have a tough time matching it. So Pearce ran for the Legislature again, and even took public campaign funds to help fend off the heavy attacks from business-friendly critics.

Meanwhile, Flake isn’t taking any chances and he has launched a new fundraising tool called the Pork Parade. Technically, the site is supposed to be devoted to building support against pork-barrel spending and earmarks. But given its emphasis on the use of Twitter and its relative lack of content, the real purpose likely will be to build up Flake’s personal image and gather contact information for future donation appeals, ala Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Retired IBM technician Rob Haney of Phoenix is a rather annoying thorn in the political side of Sen. John McCain. Haney, chairman of the Republican Party in McCain’s home legislative district, clearly would prefer that McCain leave the party, or even better, just leave his Senate office for another Republican to hold. Haney is convinced that McCain isn’t a real conservative and is disloyal to the Republican Party’s platform on issues ranging from campaign finance to gun control to climate change to immigration enforcement. Haney has said so to just about any journalist and citizen blogger who will listen. But a couple of my favorite quotes went to The Nation’s Max Blumenthal:

“McCain is mentally unstable and vindictive and out of control.”

—Huffington Post, Feb. 15, 2007

 “The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the ’straight talk express.’ Well, down here we call it the ‘forked tongue express.’”
—The Nation, Feb. 21, 2007

Haney got quite a bit of national media coverage after the McCain camp tried to seize control of legislative District 11 during the 2006 state primary through the election of precinct committeemen, also known as PCs. This low-level office is the key to participating in the party’s official machinery. Party leaders must start out as PCs and must be voted in by other PCs.

A number of McCain backers were elected as PCs in 2006, but not enough to take down Haney, who has continued to speak out even after McCain earned the Republican nomination for president last spring. Given McCain’s frequently hot temper, you can guess what he did for this year’s state primary on Sept. 2.

“You’d think he’d try to put things aside and unify the party with a presidential election going on. Instead, he tried even harder,” Haney told me Thursday.

The McCain camp elected another slate of impressive candidates to this obscure post, including former Govs. Fife Symington and Jane Hull and current Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne. Creating the most buzz in Republican circles was the defeat of Haney supporter Tom Husband, who will have to give up his title as chairman of the Maricopa County Republican committee.

But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who also lives in the district, weighed in on behalf of Haney and his slate of candidates. That might have tilted the scales against McCain, although no one will know for sure until District 11 PCs gather in late November to choose district leaders.

“By my reckoning, we still have a considerable margin,” Haney said. “I was surprised by that myself.”

And as District 11 has perhaps the largest number of PCs in the state, that outcome could heavily influence who is chosen as the party’s statewide chairman in 2009. Current chairman Randy Pullen also lives in District 11, and he’s another party activitist who has publicly clashed with McCain before.

As for Haney, he’s going to vote Republican in the presidential election on Nov. 4. But he won’t see it as a vote for McCain.

“How could you be enthusiastic for someone who has done his best in the past four years trying to decimate the conservative base, including you? There is hope with Sarah Palin.”

Hugh Downs, an East Valley resident and former host of ABC’s 20/20, broke his final tie to journalistic independence and has decided to support Democrat Barack Obama for president. The Obama campaign has scheduled a 3 p.m. news conference today at the Tempe campus of Arizona State University, where the school of communication is named after the TV legend. The campaign already has released a comment from him:

“I am proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama for
President.  At a time when our economy is faltering and our health care
system remains in crisis, we cannot afford four more years of the same
failed economic policies,” said Downs, 87. “Senator Obama has solid,
realistic plans to strengthen our economy, provide health care to every
American and create jobs across this great nation. Arizonans, like all
Americans, need the change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington.”

When Downs retired in 1999, he held a world record for the longest continuous appearence on network television. He started out in entertainment but transitioned into television news and came to reflect journalistic credibility similar to that of Walter Cronkite and other anchors of the main nightly news shows.

Downs had fallen somewhat from that perch with his slate of late-night informercials. But I have heard Downs speak a couple of times, including an appearence before the Arizona Senate a few years back, and I was impressed by his continued eloquence and insight driven by his perspective as an independent observer of events.

Endorsing Obama casts a partisan shadow over Downs’ stellar career, one that’s sure to inspire those who claim all journalists are liberal and subtly support Democrats in our work, whether or not we admit to it.

Proposed pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake (submitted photo)

Hugh Hallman

Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman faces a real public test of his standing with the Republican Party in connection to some pork-barrelling politics that has benefited his city. Hallman was in St. Paul, Minn., at the Republican National Convention earlier this month, where vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin explained why their party no longer should support Alaskan bridges to nowhere and other pet spending projects that lawmakers insert into budget bills to the detriment of taxpayers in other parts of the country.

The Tribune Editorial Board noted today an interesting parallelbetween the Alaskan issue and a proposed pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake that will be funded mostly from federal dollars set aside in highway funding bills. The scale of the two projects certainly were different ($400 million for the Ketchikan bridge vs. $5.7 million for the Tempe bridge). But the principle is the same, isn’t it?

Hallman may be a loyal Republican, but he’s the leading statesman for the East Valley’s most liberal community. That puts him in a position to advocate for policies and spending ideas that drive some Republicans crazy, such as light rail.

Still, Arizona Sen. John McCain has built his campaign for president, in part, on his absolute refusal to seek pork-barrel spending that the Tempe bridge seems to represent. (Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., was the bridge’s primary champion.)

As construction of the Tempe bridge isn’t slated to start until January, Hallman has an opportunity to at least try to follow Palin’s example and say “thanks, but no thanks” while the issue is in the spotlight. Or will Hallman defy the leadership being offered by his party’s standard bearers?

I wish I had some inkling to Hallman’s answer. But so far, the mayor hasn’t responded to my editorial board colleague Mark Scarp, who has been trying to speak to Hallman about this issue since Wednesday.

                KIRK ADAMS                         STEVE YARBROUGH

I recently wrote about two state senators from the East Valley entering the competition to be the next president of the Arizona Senate. Well, two House members from the Mesa-Chandler area apparently are preparing to challenge House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, for his post, assuming all three are re-elected Nov. 4.

Reps. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, and Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, are both committee chairmen and effective at getting their issues through the legislative process. A spokesman for Weiers tried to pass off the two challengers as “friendly competition.” But Adams, at least, seems pretty serious to me, given he’s put together this rather nifty 16-page booklet on how Republicans could stop losing so many budget battles to Gov. Janet Napolitano and Democratic lawmakers. (Hat tip to espressopundit.com for reporting this first).

 Adams wants to take advantage of the widespread anger that Napolitano drove the legislative budget process two years in a row, despite Republicans holding more legislative seats. Weiers was among those outraged in July when a handful of Republicans again worked with Democrat lawmakers to pass out the governor’s budget proposal. But Adams is implying that Weiers’ leadership (or lack thereof) contributed significantly to Napolitano’s victories.

“You have to ask yourself what’s the purpose of being in the majority,” Adams told me Thursday. “You can’t keep blaming what happens on a few wayward Republicans.”

Adams’ little white paper specifically calls for the House speaker to be far less than aloof from fellow Republicans, to attend all or most of that party’s caucus meetings throughout the session and to take direct charge of the major issues. Adams also wants the chairman of the House Appropriation Committee to lead any negotiations with the outside parties (Napolitano’s office and Democrat lawmakers). Of course, that’s easy to say with Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, leaving the House next year because of term limits. A new appropriations chairman appointed by Adams would have to be more willing to bend to the wishes of House leadership than Pearce ever was as appropriations chairman.

I haven’t been able to reach Yarbrough to hear his thoughts about running for speaker. Adams said the two haven’t discussed the possibility of uniting behind one candidate to improve a challenger’s chances of upsetting Weiers. But Adams was rather deferential.

“I think Steve would make a very good speaker who would serve our caucus and the state of Arizona very well,” Adams said.