One Last Whack at that Poor, Dead Horse

At the risk of keeping this dust up alive for another day, I've got one last post concerning the Great STS-Quinlan Snarling Match between the Sonoran Alliance blog and the Willet Creek Dam blog.

Brett Mecum on staff at the state party sent me a nice note clarifying the situation surrounding the seven-page December 31, 2008 mailing from the state party on the state of the party and their record over the last two years. In the interest of putting this matter to rest with everyone getting a fair shot at making their best case, here is the note in total:

Farrell,

I hope that you and your family had Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I’ve been watching the exchange between your blog and Sonoran Alliance with quite a bit of amusement. I’m willing to bet that you’ve been getting some pretty decent traffic hits today. While I agree with the axiom that a man’s blog is his castle and that you should be able blog whatever you would like (after all, it is free speech), you are mistaken on at least two counts:

1. The mailing we did was $0.59 not $0.95 (In fact, the entire cost of the mailing was $67.26, if you want to get technical);
2. The report in questions was a report to the Executive Committee, not the entire State Committee.

The Executive Committee consists of the officers, three members at-large from each congressional district, the chairman, 1st vice chair, and 2nd vice chair from each county. The chairmen of the legislative districts serve as ex-officio non-voting members.

The reality is that we sent that mailing to just over 100 people who serve on the AZGOP Executive Committee, not to the 1,018 State Committeemen. You should view the Executive Committee on the same level as a corporate board of directors. Being new to the internal workings of the Party, I can understand your confusion. The seven page mailing was designed as a year-end report to the Executive Committee and shouldn’t have been construed beyond that. We have done reports such as this in the past to update the committee with various operations of the State Party. And just as you [Note: Farrell Quinlan is chairman of LD20 Republicans] are allowed to communicate with your district PCs, the AZGOP should communicate with its Executive Committee.

In the interests of accuracy, I trust that you will correct these errors with your readership. In the future, you should know that you can call the office and talk to Chairman Pullen or myself on such matters for clarification before you decide to send them into the public sphere.

All the best,

Brett
____________________________
Brett Mecum
Political Director, Arizona Republican Party
3501 North 24th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85016
bmecum@azgop.org

Fair enough. I stand by my concern that though arguably "OK" and technically defensible, the recent flurry of mail to state committeemen from the state party extolling Chairman Pullen's tenure was/is too much and borders on and might actually be an abuse of office. These relentless mailings implicitly seek to "make the case" for his re-election while hiding behind official communications from the party.

I hated that practice when Rick Romley, on his way out as county attorney and preparing to run for other elective office, published his die-cut hagiography on the taxpayer's dime.

I hate it now.

Brett and I just disagree.

Does this make Randy Pullen a bad guy who a Republican state committeeman should under no circumstances vote for? Not at all. They should vote their conscience on January 24th. I know I will.

My only regret in all this is that Sen. Jim Waring's outstanding legislation got lost in the imbroglio (or is that imbloglio?)

Lighten up, Francis

When I read this post on Sonoran Alliance, I was reminded of the scene from the Bill Murray comedy "Stripes" where members of the platoon were sitting around telling stories about themselves, where they come from.

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.

Leon: Ooooooh.

Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

All I could say while reading the post, “Lighten up, STS.”

Who or what is STS and what did I ever do to him… her… them… ah… whatever?  STS must be one of the Sonoran Alliance’s bloggers who doesn’t feel comfortable being “out-of-the-closet” yet (to use SA’s own formulation).  All I know is that when someone posts a entry brazenly proclaiming “Policing the Blogosphere” as its title, I’d really appreciate the ability to face my accuser, or at least know them as a real flesh and blood human being.  But who am I to judge the judge, right?  Let’s put aside STS’s manifest cowardice… er, no… I mean… spunky use of a pseudonym and address some of the indictments in his/her/its 1,264 words of breathless, over-the-top caviling.  

I’ll take them in order…

Correcting other blogs?  Absolutely, but doesn’t everything STS then goes on to write about fall into the “disagreeing with other blogs” category rather than being placed in the correction pile?

Bias Disclosure? Again fair point for some blogs, but in what way precisely am I hiding my biases on Willet Creek Dam?  It’s a personal blog that I use to comment on all manner of topics ranging from books to movie, from sports to politics.  I’m confused how I’m false advertising.

Hardliner on Immigration?  This is refreshing.  Quinlan has “an extremely hardline position in favor of ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ and he is a consistent advocate for businesses being able to hire illegal aliens, essentially without consequences.”  Interesting turn of phrasing.  I’ll admit, I don’t wake up at 3 a.m. in a pool of sweat anxious about the Rise of Atzlan and how I’m going to get screwed exchanging my dollars for Ameros from our new North American Union overlords.  If that makes me an apostate and not a REAL conservative in the eyes of some, I’ll live with that and be happy.  I wholeheartedly support the 2008 Republican Platform plank on immigration as well as the 2004 Republican Platform plank on immigration. ‘Nuff said.

My State Political Contributions?  No secrets, do a name search here.  On the federal level, I gave money to Mitt Romney, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake, David Schweikert, Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperak, Mark Anderson, Tim Bee and McCain-Palin.

My Lobbying Clients? Click here.

Bogus Franking?  STS goes to great lengths to defend Randy Pullen’s innocent one-page congratulations letter to state committeemen dated December 23, 2008.   If that letter was what had caused me to suggest some abuse of official communications then STS would be correct to criticize me for being unfair to Mr. Pullen.  But I wasn’t cheesed off about that mailing.  It was bent about the indefensible seven-page “2007-2008 Report” mailed on December 31, 2008 at $0.95 a pop.  Now that one really reeks of using Arizona Republican Party resources in a strategically-timed manner to aid in Randy Pullen’s re-election campaign.  Since that’s what I was referring to, then much of STS’s hair-trigger defense of Randy Pullen is moot.

Political Agenda?  My “self-serving… political agenda” is just that, self-serving because it’s mine.  No mystery here or need for Surgeon General-level consumer warnings to the blogosphere that STS condescends to (“Quinlan’s complaint is clever to a casual reader, but…”).  And where is STS’s evidence that my clients give fig about my blog posts?  Really?  The Arizona Landscape Contractors’ Association has not put me up to liking the movie Dark Knight or my disappointment with the U.S. Mint’s four reverse designs for the 2009 penny.  Sometimes there really aren’t wheels within wheels and the world is as straightforward as it presents itself.  Can’t I just believe that abusing official communications for campaign purposes is shabby without being a member of the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati?

Quinlan Endorsement:  Then STS really gets his Castroesque and Kim Jong-il-like cult of personality rant really into high gear making all kinds of assumptions and conclusions about which candidates I am supporting for various party positions.  Here’s the deal, I’m a homer.  I’m supporting Diane Ortiz-Parsons for Maricopa County Republican 1st Vice Chair and Mike Middleton for Maricopa County Republican 2nd Vice Chair.  Why?  Because they are LD20 folks and I know they will do a good job.  Did I also endorse Jerry Brooks for Maricopa County Republican Chair?  Sure.  Why?  Because Diane and Mike are running on a ticket with him and I trust their recommendation.  I wouldn’t know Jerry Brooks or Rob Haney if they waved at me at Wal-mart.  All I know is that Jerry is from Chandler and so am I.  He’s already sent me two mailings (on his own dime!) asking for my support.  I’ve got nothing from Haney and it being a week out, I’ve decided that Brooks is my man.  (By the way, the West Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance and the Arizona Contractors Association don’t really care and have released my from my feudal vassalage to make this decision on my own.)

Pot Calling the Kettle Black:  Ah-hah!  STS reveals that LD20 GOP Chairman Quinlan e-mailed his PCs with info about the upcoming county meeting and endorsed Brooks, et al… HYPOCRITE!!!  Lighten up, Francis.  My e-mail was from my personal account and wasn’t an official communication to anyone.  The official communication came in the mail from the county party a couple days ago.  And it didn"t have a list of candidates in it (only the announcement, resolutions and proxy form).  Comrade STS, am I not allowed to communicate with the PCs in my district?  

Finally, STS really begins to show the effects of oxygen deprivation when he concludes with soaring rhetoric about “the kind of Republican” I am and how I’ve “forfeit[ed] the mantle of integrity” and all that.  Yikes.  STS really has very thin skin about Dear Leader.  Or maybe, STS has a hidden, integrity-diminishing agenda against Farrell Quinlan and all his ilk!  

Whatever.

Blogging should be fun.  That’s how I approach it.  STS, good luck and be well.

Sen. Jim Waring Bill Seeks End of Officeholders' Abuse of Official Communications

Bravo to Sen. Jim Waring on his new legislation that seeks to keep public officials from abusing the public trust to promote themselves. It really angers me when officeholders use their position to inappropriately insinuate themselves into official communications from their agencies in blatant attempts to gravy train off a government expenditure. Incumbency is powerful enough.

Now if we could only get Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen to stop using official party communications with GOP state committeemen to push his accomplishments ahead of the January 24th election of the next state GOP chairman. In that race, Pullen is running for re-election in a rematch with Lisa James who Pullen bested by a slim 4-vote margin in 2006. Regardless of Pullen's case for a second term, it's a risky strategy to play so loose with his "franking" privileges with an electorate that is so proud of its conservative credentials. I guess we'll see on January 24th how ideologically consistent these state committeemen are.

Read this account from the Arizona Capitol Times of Sen. Waring’s legislation here:

Arizona Capitol Times

January 2, 2009

Bill curbs public funds for media announcements

By Luige del Puerto

luige.delpuerto@azcapitoltimes.com

Three years ago, Gov. Janet Napolitano was featured on a state-sponsored billboard to promote Arizona tourism and safe driving on the state’s highways. The move was lambasted by her Republican opponents as a way to grab free publicity as the 2006 election approached.

But she isn’t the only elected official who has used state money to promote a public cause – and to reap the residual benefits of name recognition.

In 2007, the office of Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall published a 56-page booklet that included several pictures of LaWall herself. One photo showed LaWall next to a toddler with a caption that read “Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall believes our children are our future.”

And last year, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas followed suit with a 45-page handbook called “Roadmap to Crime Prevention” that included several references to Thomas and featured his smiling portrait.

This year, however, Sen. Jim Waring will try to end the practice of using public money on frivolous promotional material. The Phoenix Republican has sponsored legislation that would prohibit the use of public money for print or broadcast media announcements or Web site campaigns featuring elected officials or their employees.

The filing of SB 1002 on Dec. 9 represents Waring’s second try to get the bill passed. Last year, a similar Waring bill was not heard in the Senate.

SB 1002, though, includes new language to outline that the use of public funds for public announcements would be banned only when they refer to an official who is elected or appointed to elective office.

The bill also contains language effectively saying it should not be construed to prevent the official from “performing the duties” of his or her office, and it does not restrict an elected official’s right to communicate on “matters of public concern.”

The bill raises a couple of questions: How do you determine whether a print or broadcast media announcement is relating a matter of public concern? When is it in line with executing the duties of an elective office?

For instance, Thomas has vigorously defended publication of the handbook, saying it was an effective way to distribute public safety information.

The money used to pay for LaWall’s report came directly from funds seized in connection to criminal activity in the county.

And Napolitano has defended the decision to put up the billboards, saying she was just doing her job. At the time, she also pointed out that there were similar billboards featuring political figures all across the nation.

The legislation has a new sense of urgency, given the tough budget climate the state faces, Waring said.

“We do not have money to waste,” he said.

The Phoenix lawmaker said some of the ads or public announcements he has seen these past few years were neither efficient nor effective use of public money.

“The worst are the billboards with the governor’s picture — totally pointless,” he said.

Waring admitted that the bill is open-ended, but emphasized he needed a place to start, given that his previous bill did not go anywhere this past session.

“I am going to tighten it up and make it so it is clear, with no potential loopholes or ambiguities or it is not going to go,” he said.

Last session’s bill was assigned to the Senate Government Committee, chaired by Sen. Jack Harper, a Republican from Surprise. Harper did not hear the bill in committee.

Harper said there were complaints about the rigid language of last year’s bill. He said he hasn’t read the new version yet but added he supports its intent.

“It’s a great concept. I think it’s very taxpayer-friendly,” Harper said.

Jeff Kros, legislative director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said his group’s concern over the previous bill was that its language was “probably too broad” and “too restrictive.”

“I think we have the same concerns as everybody else in that a lot of our elected officials have to use the media to do their jobs, and this seemed to be really restrictive,” Kros said.

Waring introduced his bill last year after Thomas’ handbooks had unleashed a firestorm across the state, with Maricopa County supervisors questioning the wisdom of using public money to produce them.

Waring, though, has said the bill was not intended to target any particular official.

Theoretically, under SB 1002, Thomas’ handbooks still could be produced — but minus the county attorney’s name and picture.

At Least Herbert Hoover Was a Dog Lover

Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives customarily knock each other over and then crawl over their colleagues’ bodies to be identified with their self-proclaimed political godfather, Ronald Wilson Reagan. But on Monday, September 29, 2008 those same “Reagan” Republicans abandoned their affinity for one Republican president in favor of another who usually never gets mentioned in the GOP Presidential Pantheon of Greatness. Today they emulated Herbert Clark Hoover by rejecting the financial rescue plan.

It doesn’t really matter if the real culprits were Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats. It doesn’t matter that Barack Obama has offered inspired leadership the equivalent to a “present” vote. Republicans will be blamed for this neo-Hooverism, lack of leadership and failure to take control of the hemorrhaging on Wall Street. What good was all the handwringing about the potential costs of the “bailout” reaching as high as $700 billion when there’s an actual one-day evaporation of over $1 trillion in market value right after the bill goes down? John McCain’s courageous gambit last week now looks meek and enfeebled.

Will we look back this week as the week Barack Obama won the presidency? The conventional wisdom has been, like with Reagan in 1980, Obama has to reassure America that he is ready to be president and that he is not too risky to be given the power of the presidency. Who knew that the Republicans would deliver that verdict to Obama by default through their own demonstrated lack of seriousness and statesmanship?

McCain-Romney Ticket Best for GOP in 2008

The web is all aflutter about John McCain’s pick for vice presidential running mate. Speculation has centered on two leading candidates (unless we are all victims of a giant head-fake which is easily possible.)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are who pundits identify as the likely pair of finalists.

Both come from “blue” states with only Pawlenty holding out any promise of carrying his home state.

Both are Washington outsiders.

Both are much younger than the septuagenarian John McCain.

Both lay claim to representing the Republican Party’s conservative base.

Both are pro-life.

But these similarities only hint at the true benefits of the two.

Despite today’s CNN report boosting the prospects of a McCain-Pawlenty ticket, the GOP nominee ought to go with the “safe” pick and tap his former rival Mitt Romney as his veep. That conclusion shouldn’t surprise readers of Willet Creek Dam since I supported Romney during the primaries. But this is not just an exercise in accepting half-a-loaf since my guy lost the presidential nomination.

Romney actually compliments McCain’s profile nicely. He’s inarguably an economic expert that can authoritatively counter the relentless gloom and doom messages about the economy coming from the media and Democrats. He’s proven his job creation skills in the private sector and his fiscal accountability credentials by his rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.

He’s a relentless champion of conservative causes from the sanctity of marriage to pro-growth tax policy.

Moreover, he’s vetted. We all know how disciplined and sharp Romney is on the stump and in debates. And most important, he literally drinks milk. There are no personal skeletons in his closet that threaten to burst forth and embarrass the ticket.

John McCain should take advantage of Mitt Romney’s undeniable assets as a candidate, fundraiser and campaigner. I believe a McCain-Romney ticket would bolt out of the gate with an excellent chance to win the election in 15 short weeks. Conversely, I fear a McCain-Pawlenty ticket could become bogged down in our collective learning about the Number Two candidate and finding out if that man is up to the challenge.

Mitt Romney might be the safe pick. But in this case, “safe” is just another name for the smart choice.

If John McCain Steps Down... Could It Be Sen. Jan Brewer?

There has been some speculation about Sen. John McCain vacating his U.S. Senate seat once he secures the GOP presidential nomination in order to concentrate all his effort on winning the White House and remove the inevitable gamesmanship by the Democratic majority in the Senate (pointing out missed votes, etc.) Sort of replaying Bob Dole's decision in 1996!

Regardless of this rumor's accuracy, if he does win in November, Sen. McCain would need to resign his seat before inauguration day. Either way, Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano would have to appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two-years of his term.

Napolitano has long eyed that Senate seat for herself. Speculation has assumed that John McCain would not run for another term in 2010, especially after he achieves one of his remaining two goals: the first, securing the GOP nomination for president seems assured; the second, winning the presidency is to be decided.

What to do, what to do? Napolitano must be asking herself.

She’s a very smart political operative. She’ll think about all the angles before making her decision on any senatorial opening.

Does she go for an ideological match in order to impact policy? Does she place a chair-warmer in the seat who would not or could not pose a significant challenge to her likely 2010 run for the seat?

There are many ways to go but I suspect that Gov. Napolitano’s best political play for her own career would be appointing Arizona’s highest ranking Republican statewide officeholder. That’s right, Secretary of State Jan Brewer for replacement senator, especially if the move necessitates a 2008 special election.

Here's my reasoning... in sending Jan Brewer to DC as senator, it in no way disabuses the half-dozen-plus Republicans that have been eying that seat for more than a decade from running in a contested primary. They will be running hard (and dirty?) for the GOP nomination regardless of Sen. Jan Brewer keeping the seat warm. This serves Napolitano’s interests by weakening the eventual nominee and exposing huge riffs within the Arizona Republican Party.

The real beauty of this scenario for Napolitano is that it necessitates at least one other appointment, Jan Brewer’s replacement for the big office on the 7th Floor. This person too would have to be a Republican but he or she would be removed from the succession because of their appointment rather than election to the office. Remember, then-Attorney General Bruce Babbitt became governor when Governor and former-Secretary of State Wesley Bolin died in office and his appointed successor at State (Rose Mofford) couldn’t take the big chair (in that instance, she would a decade later).

Appointing Brewer to the U.S. Senate puts current Democrat Attorney General Terry Goddard one heartbeat away from the big office on the 9th Floor.

If McCain resigns early and loses the presidency, this scenario continues to serve Napolitano’s interests. If it’s Barack Obama winning over McCain, there is a good chance the new president-elect takes her to Washington with him as Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, etc. The gubernatorial succession issue (handing over the office to a Republican) is gone as the office falls to the elected Attorney General rather than the appointed Secretary of State.

Come 2010, incumbent Gov. Terry Goddard runs for re-election… er… election for a full term in his own right!

Moreover, Gov. Goddard will most likely have appointed a strong candidate to succeed him (say, Napolitano's Chief of Staff Dennis Burke) and the Democratic ascendancy in Arizona politics continues.

Think about it.

It could happen.

I’m an elected Republican precinct committeeman, state committeeman, and 2nd Vice Chairman of the Legislative District 20 Republican Party. I don’t relish the prospect of a continued strong Democratic Party effort up and down the Arizona ballot. But we Arizona Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the days of pushover contests are over.