Arizona's legislature is back in session. Before the first week had even finished, hundreds of bills had been "dropped" into the hopper, several which I find telling of the political atmosphere here in Arizona. Unfortunately, several of these bills reflect how our current legislature has lost touch with reason and demonstrate a sense of political entitlement that has and will continue to harm our state. Clearly, they have learned absolutely nothing from the message Arizona voters sent in the 2011 elections.
Republicans used to be the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. I come from a family of "Barry Goldwater Republicans." My uncle told stories about my grandfather introducing Barry at the local Rotary Club. These days, I hear the names Reagan and Goldwater dropped at meetings as if the men were still around today. Both ran campaigns that highlighted the best our country had to offer and recognized our potential. They worked with Democrats to help make ours a better country. If there was a good idea, it got a hearing.
Not here.
Again we hear what seems like annual reports of Republican leadership saying few Democratic bills will get a hearing regardless of the merits. Go to www.azleg.gov and look up Democratic-sponsored bills and see how many have hearings scheduled. Not too many. And God forbid any of them attempt to fix laws that have damaged our state. This "know-it-all" attitude and unwillingness to listen is what defeated former Senate President Russell Pearce in the recall. For him it was "my way or the highway." His sense of entitlement and invulnerability led to his running one of the worst campaigns in Arizona history.
The recall allowed voters to witness how dirty Republican politics can be when one of their leaders is threatened. Sham candidates, illegal street signs, voter-suppressing robo-calls, baseless personal attacks at community members, and malicious mailers were just a few of the dirty tricks deployed-and not once did the Republican leadership speak out against it. They thought it was OK because they were entitled to the seat. To ensure that a successful recall doesn't happen again, power-hungry Republicans want to change the rules. The result will be a legislature of special interests that can outspend all sensible voices and disregard upset constituents.
A recent CNN poll found that two-thirds of Americans think money corrupts politics. Here in Arizona, Republicans have introduced HB 2213 that seeks to increase campaign contributions tenfold. This bill will raise the individual contribution limit from $488 to $5,000. It would raise the amount that a political committee can give to a legislative candidate to $25,000. Republicans believe the Golden Rule of "He who has the gold makes the rules." Where does that leave you?
In another effort to stifle the voice of the people, Arizona Republicans introduced HB 2020 that increases by 60 percent the number of signatures required to initiate a citizen recall of a state legislator. Currently, you need only 10 percent of the total number of ballots cast in the previous election to initiate a recall. Interestingly, the same people who support HB 2020 are the same people who doubted we'd collect enough signatures to recall Pearce. Yet now that Pearce lost, they want to make recalls more difficult and it's all because they didn't like the outcome. That's not honoring the Constitution or respecting the will of the people. It's sour grapes from sore losers who want to weaken your voice.
By opening the floodgates to special interest money and by drastically decreasing the probability of a recall, these out-of-touch legislators will continue to turn their backs on voters and continue making Arizona what comedian Jon Stewart calls "the meth lab of Democracy." There are more important issues to work on, like creating jobs, growing businesses, and restoring our state to world-class competitiveness rather than worrying about fundraising or recalls. It's clear they are their own highest priority.
Andrew Sherwood is Democratic Party district chairman for Arizona's Legislative District 18.
bobunf posted at 4:39 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
One recalled state legislator per century is too few; not too many.
Rich posted at 6:50 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
Logically, you typify rather than illuminate the problem. Just here, in the Trib I can locate eight different opposed political philosophers, their philosophies at least, just this week. That doesn't fit into two boxes, and the only reason there are only two boxes is that both, not just one are totally corrupt, putting election, not philosophy, reason or the well-being of their constituents on top of their list of things to do today. We don't vote our ideas, our philosophy, we are forced to vote between two candidates, and have been for so long it almost ceases to matter which one we choose. We have problems we need to address, but neither the GOP or the Democrats will. It would hurt their election/re-election chances. We have two effective choices and neither stands for anything at all but the power to control our money and our lives. They work together all the time, far too much, to the point where an election isn't about running a government for the electorate, it's about controlling that electorate to profit. And until Democrat and Republican are the kiss of death to any candidacy, it can only get worse.
lectricheart posted at 6:23 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Ron Paul in 2012!!!!
bobunf posted at 10:20 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Rich, I think you totally obfuscate the issues, "rather than illuminate." The only reason there are only two boxes is not that both political parties are "totally corrupt." The primary reason is that we have single member districts.
The merits of single member districts, as opposed to proportional voting, have been debated for centuries. Each have merits, but it should be abundantly clear that proportional representation and multiple parties do not guarantee a decreased level of corruption, nor an increased level of competent governance compared to single member districts. And certainly not more stable government. The examples of Spain, France, Malta, Italy and Greece should be instructive.
I also don't see any evidence that politicians in Sweden or Denmark are less concerned about hurting their "election/re-election chances."
Many millions of Americans are very directly involved in the two political parties. There are about a half million precinct committee people, or their equivalent, in the United States. And about a half million elected public officials, and many times more staff, organizers, campaign workers, contributors, etc. There are thousands of public interest organizations with millions of involved members - from archaeology to zoology - who are involved in the political process.
And all of these politically involved people have family members and friends - parents, siblings, children, aunts, uncles, cousins and BFFs.
These are the people who are interested in government and motivated enough to put effort and resources into that interest. To call them all "corrupt" is just silly.
If you don't like what's going on, get involved. The most effective way is find an issue you care about or a candidate you respect (you won't agree with any human on every issue), join a group of people similarly minded and WORK at it.
Impractical, unfocused whining about "the system" is useless - a waste of air and bits.
By the way, Ron Paul will be 77 in November. Aside from that he has about as much chance as Stephen Colbert.
sockratties posted at 10:23 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Andrew – Your assertions are correct, regarding the recent politics and shenanigans of the GOP during the Pearce recall, but the comment from Rich more accurately describes the underlying problem. Republicans are so deeply entrenched in Arizona government that they have become totally corrupted. If they were Democrats the result would be no different. Any politician who hopes to play in Arizona will first have to play with the powers that be. You found that out when you failed in your bid for state rep in district 18. Arizona could be used as the “canary in a coal mine” when it comes to money steering the political ship.
Your political platitudes about more important issues like jobs, growing business and restoring competitiveness is typical campaign jargon for “get me into office and I'll make everything better.” They have no more specific content than those of your GOP opponents. When candidates are willing to list exactly how they will solve problems, what it will cost, when they will produce results, what those results will be and what they will do if they don't succeed (like not run again), maybe they will get my vote. If they pander to the powers that be and spend their term campaigning for the next election they won't get any future vote.
I noticed that education is not on your list of more important issues. It should be at the top and it should not be the voucher/no voucher argument that is replacing the discussion of how to actually fix the problem of drop-outs, failures, lack of achievement by our students. This is another case of politicians trying to fix a problem they don't know how to define and using people who created and support the failing system to suggest remedies; the blind leading the blind.
Russel Pearce was not recalled because of incompetence. He was recalled because he was not effective in solving problems he pretended to address. He supported his own agenda and responded to constituents who could most benefit his personal agenda. It was his “let them eat cake” attitude that rubbed people the wrong way, demonstrated his arrogance and eventually cost him his job.
elevation posted at 10:58 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
That sense of entitlement mentioned in the first paragraph is a good word to use with respect to the Republicans in this state. They certainly act like they are entitled to run the place, but they really don't like it when anyone else has a sense of entitlement. It's all theirs no one can have more unless they say so.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 4:01 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
ANDREW SHERWOOD IS A ..........."LOSER"............HE LOST TO RUSSELL PEARCE IN THE 2010 NOVEMBER ELECTION BY............7000 VOTES.....7000 VOTES......FOLKS.
RUSSELL PEARCH GOT 17,000 VOTES AND ANDREW SHERWOOD ONLY GOT 10,000...........THAT'S ALMOST A.........2 TO ONE MARGIN.........[sad]
IT USED TO BE IN POLITICS THAT WHEN YOU GOT YOUR ....PATOOTIE KICK....YOU KEPT QUIET AND TOOK YOUR..."WHOOPING" LIKE A MAN.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS IN ARIZONA CONDUCT THEMSELVES ANY LONGER DOES IT ???
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:17 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
@ Andrew Sherwood: I noticed that you DIDN'T MENTION anything wrong by members of Jerry Lewis's campaign. Your favoritism is showing, AGAIN!
For those interested, here's the link:
http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_ac0cb6a2-0416-11e1-904c-001cc4c03286.html
CooperG posted at 6:23 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Leon: Sherwood has lost the same number of elections as Pearce has, the big difference is Sherwood lost his fighting a fair fight and Pearce lost his trying to cheat every way imaginable and do so in stunningly amateurish and childish way.
Let me try to put it in a context you might understand:
SHERWOOD HAS A POLITICAL FUTURE.......PEARCE DOES NOT!!!
PEARCE RAISED OUR TAXES AND CUT THEM FOR HIS OUT-OF-DISTRICT BUDDIES.......HE LIED ABOUT PAYING BACK THE FIESTA BOWL.....HE HELPED MESA BUSINESSES CLOSE.....HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.
PEARCE IS GONE......OLIVIA CORTES IS GONE.....SHERWOOD STILL STANDS TALL.
As for Satan's Pirate, what this old "Lewis cheated" claim again? I'm sorry, but where is your proof? Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
I remember a lawsuit with testimony regarding Cortes, but I'm just failing to recall anything like that against Lewis. I seem to recall Lester Pearce being in deep trouble with the courts for illegally campaigning for his brother and he may lose his judgeship. I just don't recall anything similar regarding the Lewis campaign. If you have proof of misdeeds, then why haven't you filed a complaint with the Attorney General or Secretary of State?
Oh, you have NO proof? Then get back on your ship and sail it.
For those interested, here are the links:
http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_dfa12498-eb6c-11e0-ae4c-001cc4c002e0.html
http://eastvalleytribune.com/local/mesa/article_b72ebb5e-cf71-11e0-86a4-001cc4c03286.html
http://eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_8a190b84-de57-11e0-8c2d-001cc4c002e0.html
http://eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_7d3c8468-ebc2-11e0-a350-001cc4c03286.html
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:25 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
CooperG: I did include the link to the previous story. There was many comments by many people, and I figured one link to comments from both sides would suffice. So, what I did was copy/paste the most pertinent comment I directed to you.
"Satan's Pirate"? Now that's one I haven't heard! It actually made me laugh, although I know that was not your intent. Just can't get over that "666" fixation can you, even though I've explained it to you before. See link:
http://eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_ac0cb6a2-0416-11e1-904c-001cc4c03286.html
Comment info: Masterrogue666 posted at 7:53 pm on Thu, Nov 3, 2011.
It's unfortunate, but I've learn to expect childish insults from persons like yourself. I only hope that one day you'll grow up, or grow wiser. However, with your mind closed as it is, the latter one probably won't happen.
Just to make you happy, here's PART of what I was referring to:
Comment info: Masterrogue666 posted at 11:15 pm on Wed, Nov 2, 2011.
CooperG wrote the following:
1. "@Rouge - higher level thinking isn't your strong suit is it?" -- My response: Gee CopperG, spelling isn't yours, is it? If you wish to shorten my screenname, fine, but try spelling it correctly like "ROGUE" instead of "ROUGE" BEFORE questioning the person's intellect. Because when you don't (as in your case), then all you do is make yourself look like a COMPLETE FOOL! . Please don't claim you meant it as an insult that I wear makeup, it will only make you seem even more foolish. Further, if you check my statement, UNLIKE YOU, I didn't "ATTACK" Sherwood, all I did was state that I disagree with his "INTERPRETATION". When you attempt personal attacks, all it shows is your inability to argue your viewpoint like an adult, which only further demeans yourself.
2. "There is plenty of evidence pointing to the plain and simple fact that Pearce supporters, including his brother and nieces shilled for Cortes." -- My response: Did you even bother TO READ ANYTHING I WROTE? I stated that the Cortes thing WAS A TRICK, but LEGAL. However, my POINT was that "The recall was started BEFORE that incident." If you READ Sherwood's article, the way he referred to it was that the "Cortez shame" was PART OF THE REASON for the recall. That is IMPOSSIBLE since the recall HAD TO BE STARTED BEFORE Cortes could even become a candidate. This shows YOUR INABILITY TO THINK LOGICALLY (and Sherwood's), by the way. In any event, YOU CLAIM that someone "broke the law" with what been called the "Cortez shame". As I told Sherwood, that is WRONG. A JUDGE has already ADVISED THAT NOTHING ILLEGAL was done. As I stated BEFORE, was it a trick? Yes, but ALSO LEGAL.
I'm aware the of the GEOGRAPHIC breakdown of Lewis's contributors. However, I would like the know the MONETARY breakdown (direct and indirect for BOTH candidates) per supporter. In other words, you could have 1,000 people in LD 18 give $1 each, but have an outside source contribute MILLIONS. You could claim that the majority of contributors came from LD 18 (and be statistically correct), but the majority of FINANCIAL SUPPORT would have come from outside LD 18.
For instance, Lewis reported he received $68,837 in DIRECT contributions. However, Citizens for a Better Arizona (which ORGANIZED the recall) spent $141,024 INDEPENDENTLY. Common sense tells me that they aren't in LD 18. Perhaps you missed that FACT in all those news reports you mentioned. BOTH SIDES have outside supporters. However, it seems that Lewis supporters are loathe to state THAT FACT. IMHO, I think both sides should provide a detailed report of all direct and independant support they receive, and a detailed report as to WHOM those supporters are, but not if they are an individual citizen (although the total amount collected from individual citizens should be reported as well). This should be done not for just recall elections, but any/all elections.
3. "What is a "fake postcard?" The cards were accurate." -- My response: Again, did you read my article? I SUGGESTED if you doubt me, do a Google search for "Citizens United for Progress postcards". Did you do such a search? Did you FOLLOW the link? Did you READ the article? Perhaps you missed: "Presently, the Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, is investigating it as an illegal mailer. Even though it was sent by Citizens United for Progress (a leftist organization) and they are NOT directly connected with the Lewis campaign, it will probably be found illegal resulting in the group being fined. But it reinforces the claim that the left is backing Lewis at any cost including violating campaign finance laws as Lewis turns a blind eye and refuses to condemn illegal behavior." So, it CLEARLY STATES that it will probably be found to be ILLEGAL, and what group is behind it. The article's FIRST SENTENCE states: "falsely pretends to be from Helen Purcell as an official communication from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office." As I stated, FAKE. So, it seems that the only side that is doing something ILLEGAL (so far, of course) is LEWIS's side.
As for freedom of speech, even though I may disagree with your opinion(s), I would fight FOR YOUR RIGHT to freedom of speech just like any other CITIZEN of the United States. However,you should avoid making accusations in areas that you have NO KNOWLEDGE about. Because if you go too far, and can't prove your statement, you could be sued for libel. Unlike you, I usually will back up my statements with some correlating information, and avoid making broad, poorly thought out statements. In fact, since you have been wrong about so many things, I actually PREFER that you express yourself. It only helps weaken your argument, and strengthen mine.
4. Regarding your "tens of thousands" comment. -- My response: Good, you know how to add to ten. However, your WEAK POINT is spelling (mentioned earlier). There is a difference in "Ten" and "Tens". The word "TEN" is SINGULAR. The word "TENS" is PLURAL (by the way, my kid in 2nd grade KNOWS the difference, FYI), meaning MORE THAN ONE. Ergo, since you seem to know about basic math, I guess that you'd know that the word "tens" (when employed CORRECTLY) would actually be a MINIMUM amount of 20, and technically, could be much more. I did state that I THOUGHT it was several thousand. I've read that the total was 10,365. My POINT is that a "reporter" should write in a more clear, conscise, ACCURATE manner. A better way of stating it would have been either: "Over ten thousand" or "Over 10,000", or the exact amount itself.
Please bear in mind that I did not (but could, if you'd like me to) go into detail of the MANY positions Jerry Lewis has failed at, and some of his more "questionable" past actions. What's sad is that the liberals portray him as "squeaky clean". I wonder, are they blind to facts, or just using smoke and mirrors on themselves as well....
[beam][beam]
I'll include a few links, just to appease you. However, we both know that it's quite easy to do a google search. IMHO, looking for the information yourself shows you have an open mind to look at both sides, and then decide for yourself your own opinion. You seem to think Lewis is squeeky clean, and he's not. Nothing you write can change that.
Now for some one interesting link which contains many more. If I wanted to spend the time, I could have found more. However, since I know you to be a closed minded person, it really isn't worth my time.
Please note that I couldn't but two links due to the profanity block, and I'll try to get around them.
meetjerrylewis.com
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:31 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
The article by the Sonoran Alliance on the postcard has been removed. I was able to find these, however:
I couldn't get around the block, so I am placing a search link that should work. The first two links (Both from New Times) makes for interesting reading.
Bye, bye now....
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:32 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Search link:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=new+times+Anti-Russell+Pearce+Group+Sends+LD+18+Mailer&pbx=1&oq=new+times+Anti-Russell+Pearce+Group+Sends+LD+18+Mailer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1148l3512l0l4684l11l8l0l2l2l1l427l1779l0.5.2.0.1l10l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=339f89ea28169800&biw=1280&bih=912
CooperG posted at 9:25 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Really? A web site put up by Russell Pearce supporters whose sole purpose is character assassination by guilt through association using people Lewis never met? A web site that is intended only to mislead and distort?
That's your best shot? Thanks for making my point.
This is why Pearce lost. No substance. No facts, only lies and distortions. This is why he has no future and this is why Sherwood does. Sherwood has integrity and intelligence.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:01 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Andrew Sherwood is just another political hack bad mouthing the other political party.
Andrew, when you start believing in legal over illegal, states right over federal rights and right to work over union oppression then I might start listening to you. Otherwise take a hike.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:50 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
CooperG: The "New Times" is one of the MOST LIBERAL rags I know of, and even they didn't condone some things done by Lewis supporters at that time.
Thanks for PROVING, YET AGAIN, the you don't bother to investigate for yourself. You wish to blind yourself, so be it. Be an liberal automaton for all I care. I don't expect to sway a close minded individuals like yourself. However, I have no doubt I help sway (as do you by your actions) the opinions of others. I acually like it when you go off the deep end like you do. Please, keep up the "good" work. [beam]
Rich posted at 11:09 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
"...why he has no future and this is why Sherwood does."
I sure hope not, we are well overstocked with political hacks as it is. Just once I'd like to read a politico who advocates government doing more for less money, and not carping about the 'other' party.
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:17 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
Rich: I'm awestruck. I actually agreed with several things you mentioned.
CooperG wrote: "This is why Pearce lost. No substance. No facts, only lies and distortions. This is why he has no future..."
Wrong again:
http://eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/immigration/article_706c69d4-469d-11e1-80c7-001871e3ce6c.html