REP. HARRY MITCHELL

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., has announced that her colleague, Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Tempe, was one of six House members added today to the Blue Dog Coalition. This issue-oriented congressional caucus (or voting bloc) is centered around Democrats who want their party to shed the image of “tax-and-spend,” and adopt conservative fiscal policies that includes lowering key taxes and balancing the budget as soon as possible. The coalition also serves as a sanctuary for Democrats who are pro-life or strong gun rights advocates, in conflict with the official party platform.

Membership in the coalition is restricted and considered desireable because Republicans have a hard time labeling such Democrats as “liberal.” Washington political observers were surprised when Giffords was added to the coalition after the 2004 election but Mitchell wasn’t.

Apparently, with a larger Democratic majority next year, the coalition decided to grow as well and Mitchell made the cut this time.

JEFF FLAKE

Back before the Sept 2 primaries, I wrote a blog post about why it didn’t really matter which of two Democrats emerged to challenge Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., as neither one had raised any money for their campaigns while Flake was sitting on pile of cash. If you read the comments under that post, you’ll note I took quite bit of criticism for suggesting that advertising funds and name recognition have far more influence over election campaigns than ideas, character, values or any of the other issues that voters are supposed to weigh.

Well, with the vote counting nearly over, Democrat Rebecca Schneider stuck to her principles in the 6th Congressional District, but failed to make any sort of impression in the general election. Through Oct. 15, Schneider had raised only $4,900 compared to Flake’s $1.2 million. That lopsided advantage was reflected on election day as Flake had the largest margin of victory among Arizona’s Republican candidates elected to Congress. This includes not only the percentage of votes cast (62.5 percent for Flake vs. 34.5 percent for Schneider) but also the difference in voting totals (191,540 for Flake vs. 105,862 for Schneider as of today, for a gap of about 85,300 votes). Arizona’s senior congressmen, Democrat Ed Pastor of Phoenix, defeated his largely unknown Republican opponent with 72 percent of the vote in the 4th Congressional District. But his winning margin was only about 56,300 votes.

I mentioned in my original post the difficult cycle that exists between money and federal candidates. You have to raise a good sum of money to get serious attention (at least a million dollars in Arizona); but you have to be taken seriously in order to raise that kind of money. A lot of people don’t like that, which is one big reason behind the push for publicly funded campaigns. But the federal courts appeared headed to ruling such systems unconstitutional if they force, coerce or intimidate any candidate into participating instead of running with private donations.

Now I know why Arizona Democrats are so enthusiastic about the Nov. 4 election. The Republican Party’s edge in registered voters has slipped to less than 100,000 people, or 37 percent of the total number of registered voters compared to the Democrats’ 34 percent. As reported today by Paul Davenport with The Associated Press, Democrats have moved above 1 million registered voters for the first time ever. Just four years ago, Republicans held a 40 percent to 35 percent advantage.

The biggest swings include the 3rd Congressional District (home of Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.) where Republicans actually have lost about 500 registered voters since 2004, while Democrats have added about 5,000; and in the 5th Congressional District (home of Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz.) where Republicans have lost a whopping 10,000 registered voters while Democrats have picked up about 9,000. (The GOP still has the largest number of voters in both districts).

Of course, both major parties have lost a huge number of voters to minor parties and unaffiliated independent registrations. The portion of voters registered in the “other” category (which excludes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and now the Green Party), has surged from 17 percent in 2000 to almost 28 percent now.

But independents tended to vote for Democrats in 2006, which is why that party unexpectedly picked up additional seats in the Arizona Legislature and Mitchell defeated former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. All signs point to independents doing the same this year. This reinforces my expectation that Arizona will send more Democrats than Republicans to the U.S. House for the first time since 1966. But I still believe there aren’t enough viable Democrat candidates for that party to take control of either chamber in the Legislature.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., often appears to be a lone wolf crying in the distance as he is among a handful of conservatives voting against spending measures and piddling acts of recognition that Congress wastes its time with instead of just closing up shop for the day. But Flake’s consistent philosophy has brought him some special attention after six years in the U.S. House, as Esquire magazine has named him among the 10 best members of Congress.

Flake is best know for his vocal campaign against earmarks. But Esquire is praising him for his opposition to sweeping powers of surveillance presumed by the Bush administration that Congress has sought to rein in:

A true conservative, Flake is as rare as the dodo. Republicans should learn from him, and liberals and libertarians will find in him a strong privacy-rights ally. With Democrat Adam Schiff (Calif. 29), he’s led a rearguard action to place domestic terror surveillance under court guidance.

Other members of Flake’s class, according to Esquire, including Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Mike Pence, R-Ind. and Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, as well as Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

The popular magazine has a worst-10 list as well, surprisingly topped by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas (who shouldn’t be on the list simply because of his strong support for open government laws). Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, also made the list (just barely) as did Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and William Jefferson of Louisiana.

I was stunned to hear a campaign advertisement from Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., this afternoon taking credit for fighting the $700 billion bailout package and standing up to President Bush on the issue. The ad doesn’t appear on his campaign Web site, but I heard it on KFYI (550AM) just after 2 p.m. today. It’s an obvious reference to Shadegg’s vote Monday against an earlier version of the bailout, which the House did reject. The radio ad’s language invoked an ongoing campaign theme as Shadegg the reformer who challenges the Washington establishment.

The ad was a complete surprise because it aired a couple of hours after Shadegg voted with a House majority to approve the latest version of the bailout and send it on for Bush to sign into law. The second half of the ad did include some thoughts similar to what’s in that news release about reforms such as increasing the federally insured amount for individual banking accounts and easing the rules on “mark-to-market,” or how banks and other lenders must value the physical assets used as collateral on loans. But the overall tone of the ad was the $700 billion bailout was bad for America and Shadegg stood by his constituents when he worked against it.

This would be a ready-made attack ad for Shadegg’s election opponent, Democrat Bob Lord. “He was against it before he was for it.” Only, Lord did the exact same thing, through his public statements, since he couldn’t vote on the measure.

 
            JOHN SHADEGG                                           BOB LORD

The candidates for the 3rd Congressional District have been firing back and forth this week over the $700 billion bailout package, in part because of this blog.

The campaign of Republican incumbent John Shadegg began the tussle with a news release Wednesday referring to my post Monday about Lord, the Democratic challenger, sending out a strong statement opposing the bailout package as the House vote already was going against it. Shadegg’s campaign picked up on the fact that Lord spoke out only after the bill already was doomed.

“What courage it must have taken for Bob Lord to decide he was against the bailout bill after the vote was taken,” Shadegg campaign manager Sean Noble said. ”I can see him now:  With C-SPAN on the TV, a press release supporting the bill in one hand, another press release opposing the bill in the other, Bob courageously decided to issue the release opposing the bill after the vote. I can’t imagine the pressure he was feeling.”

Noble’s quote is a somewhat subtle reference to this story from the Associated Press on Monday, which implied Arizona Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords were prepared to vote either way, depending on whether their votes would help House leaders push the measure to passage (In the end, they both voted no).

Lord shot back today with a news release referring to a comment by him published Sept. 23  in the Phoenix Business Journal raising questions about a lack of oversight in the Bush administration’s original proposal.

“When you vote with President Bush’s House leadership 98 percent of the time, maybe you even pick up Bush’s bad habits, like not reading the newspaper,” said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Lord’s campaign manager. “The American economy cannot afford more of the same failed Bush economic policies that got us into this financial crisis, and Arizona cannot afford John Shadegg’s blind support of Bush’s economic agenda. Arizona deserves better.”

I hadn’t seen Lord’s original quote, but he didn’t appear to be opposing the $700 billion bailout as a concept. His comment at the time focuses solely on who would be watching how the Treasury secretary uses the money. That’s reinforced by Lord’s new willingness to support the bailout in the latest version approved by the Senate Wednesday night.

“It’s clear we need to take action, I think the plan now before the House has improved and will provide needed economic stimulus,” Lord said in a second news release today. “However, our job is not done yet.  We have to be vigilant with oversight  of the Treasury and serious about accountability on Wall Street. We have to keep people in their homes. Most of all we need to end the disastrous Bush economic policies that got us here in the first place.”

Of course, Shadegg could wind up supporting the package as well, considering how far the stock market droppped Monday when the House rejected the earlier version. Principled public opposition appears to be eroding as people realize what happens on Wall Street affects the pension funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans.

     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?

      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.

   The Republican primary race in the Fifth Congressional District just went into overdrive with a handgun taking a prominent role.
   Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert fired off a series of news releases and e-mails complaining over the weekend about a new campaign mailer  that he says came from former Scottsdale City Councilwoman Susan Bitter Smith. You’ve got to admit that handgun pointed at the reader does jump off the page and get your attention. But I assume the red banner headline “Bitter-Smith hate mail” was added by the Schweikert campaign.
   Schweikert places the image in the same category as a 2006 TV ad by Democrat Harry Mitchell, which put then-incumbent J.D. Hayworth in what appeared to be the crosshairs of a gun sight. One interpretation of that ad (which Mitchell denied) was Hayworth deserved to be “targeted” for potential violence because of his political stances.
   There’s no question the flier is trying to frighten Fifth District voters, given the headline on the front-side of the mailer is “What is scarier than this?” The back of the mailer has gas pump nozzle pointing at the reader in the same position at the handgun. (Is the point supposed to be higher gas taxes are more frightening than getting shot?)
   Bitter Smith’s mailer arrived on the heels of a television ad targeting her and independently funded by Club for Growth, a political action committee that funnels lots of money to pro-business and low-tax candidates. Not coincidentally, Club for Growth members are supporting Schweikert.
   All of this points to the fact that Schweikert and Bitter Smith have emerged as the two leading contenders in a crowded Republican field. Schweikert has gathered more money and purchased more air-time than Bitter Smith. So now she’s trying to make up some ground in the final days of the primary campaign.

UPDATE: Libertarian Rick Biondi has contacted me to let me know that he is actually campaigning in this race. Biondi and Tribune writer Paul Giblin both explained that Giblin tried to speak with Biondi shortly before the original story was published, and Biondi was unavailable at that time to return Giblin’s phone call. But he is eager to have his point of view heard by District 6 voters.

   A couple of people have asked me recently why no one is paying any attention to the Democratic “contest” between the two candidates in the Sixth Congressional District for the nomination to face incumbent Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
   Tribune writer Paul Giblin’s reporting today lays out the facts that explain exactly why. Flake has gathered $1.1 million in campaign funds, a formidable number for a federal race but less than Flake could raise if he needed to.
   One Democrat challenger, Chris Gramazio of Queen Creek has raised a little more than $3,000. The other, Rebecca Schneider of Mesa, apparently has nothing, as she doesn’t have any finance reports on file with the Federal Election Commission. Please see the update above about this next statement. (The Libertarian candidate couldn’t bother to respond to Giblin’s request for an interview, the only evidence I need to know he’s not a serious candidate for anything.)
   Gramazio and Schneider don’t have enough money combined to put together a single decent mailbox campaign flier for Sixth district voters, much less compete with a high-octane campaign that Flake could fund.
   As a Democrat precinct committeeman, Gramazio potentially could get a little attention from the party if he wins the nomination. But with at least three competitive House races in Arizona this year, Democrat donors just aren’t going to throw money at a hopeless cause.
   Of course, this situation is a vicious circle. Someone challenging a well-heeled incumbent needs bushels of campaign money to be taken seriously by the media, donors and voters. But that same challenger needs to be taken seriously so he or she can raise bushels of campaign money. It’s one reason some candidates, such as Republicans David Schweikert and Jim Ogsbury in the Fifth Congressional District, put up several hundred thousand dollars of their own money. They sought to build interest in their bids by planting the seeds of a successful campaign infrastructure, in turn encouraging potential donors to give them a serious look.