Republicans at the Helm

Now that the media have finally awakened to the reality that Arizona Republicans are about to be in charge of the Governor's office in addition to the legislature, the shrillness of their coverage has risen to the level of epic fantasy. 

For example, in the pivotal scene of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the men of Rohan fall back to the fortress of Helms Deep while the evil Saruman sends an army of orcs to siege and overrun the Helm.

In the Arizona media's version of the narrative, Saruman climactic speech will be delivered by Jan Brewer. 

"A new power is rising. Its victory is at hand. This night the land will be stained with the blood of Rohan. March to Helm's Deep. Leave none alive. To war!"

According to the narrative of this epic fantasy, Governor Napolitano would have been the Guardian of Progressive Accomplishment--all day Kindergarten, the nascent Bio Tech Economy, gleaming new University towers--that she has steadfastly promised over the last six years.

The narrative begins in Friday morning's Republic. 

Gov. Janet Napolitano's appointment to the incoming Obama administration would put a Republican at the state's helm, potentially leading to harsher budget cuts and a U-turn on state policy governing everything from gun restrictions to abortion.

The Star even managed to introduce comic relief by adding the hapless Republican Ann Day to the narrative.

"Things would unravel," said Day, who served for 10 years in the state Senate with Brewer. "She'd undo every positive thing that's been done — all-day kindergarten, university funding … state shared revenues."

Oh my.

To make this fantasy believable, the media expects the audience to suspend belief and assume that Governor Napolitano could somehow have conjured the money to fund these programs.

The Citizen provides another example of the theme. 

(Napolitano's) skills in negotiating and consensus-building spurred the state to progress in education, from all-day kindergarten to improved state universities - even with our economy.

An archconservative approach now likely will undo much of the good that had been done.

The reality, of course, is that Napolitano spent the artificially high revenue generated by the housing bubble on ongoing programs and the state has no ability to maintain that level of funding in a downturn.  When the bubble burst,  instead of gradually ramping down spending to sustainable levels, she used gimmicks to fill the gap while claiming that revenues would come roaring back.

Her current budget commits the state to spending $10.7 billion even though her own budget team expects the state will only generate $8.5 billion in revenue.  Meanwhile, all the one-time accounting measures--school rollover, fund sweeps, rainy day fund and school bonding--have already been utilized.  Her last trick is to sell the state's lottery, but that would only raise about $500 million and we would still be $500 million short this year and $1.5 billion short next year.  Even Democratic Legislators will admit that there are no options other than cutting spending.

The media uses stories like this one to build the narrative that Governor Napolitano was making a desperate last stand to preserve her record of accomplishment and in her absence, the hoard of Republicans will bring their Escalades to the Capitol and breech the walls.

Brewer known as tight-fisted, partisan

Republican Jan Brewer, who reveled in her reputation as being tight-fisted with taxpayer money when she was in the Legislature, would drastically change the political dynamics in Arizona if she is elevated to governor through the anticipated departure of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

So Brewer is a tight-fisted partisan?  I suppose Napolitano is a bipartisan consensus builder?

In addition to dredging up 15 year quotes to demonize Jan Brewer, the media will engage in outright fabrication like in this frantic editorial from the Star.

The new Legislature will be dominated by Republican conservatives from Maricopa County. Among them:... Sen. Bob Burns of Peoria, who this week ruled out planning for infrastructure projects because of the state budget deficit.

Ruled out planning for infrastructure projects?  I was at the meeting the Star is referring to and Burns said no such thing.  He simply made the point that planning for the year 2030 would have to wait until the state overcame its current crisis.  But you don't have to rely on my word, the Star covered the meeting as well and here's what Burns actually said.

"We have used up our cash reserves. We have very few tools left to solve a worsening problem at the state level," said state Sen. Bob Burns, a Peoria Republican who will become president next year from his current post as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman. "It is a critical function to do long-term planning, but when you are in a situation that we find ourselves in now, we have to solve this short-term problem. We cannot continue to let this deteriorate."

So Burns considers long-term planning to be "critical," and clearly hasn't ruled out anything.  But that doesn't fit into the Star's fantasy narrative.

Of course, the Star sought to demonize Burns from the very beginning.  Here's how they responded to the news that he would be Senate President.

The tone and tenor of the Legislature will change. Bee, a strong voice of reason and moderation, will be replaced as Senate president by ultraconservative Bob Burns of Peoria.

Most members of the media are liberal, but consider themselves moderate, so they look at the legislative spectrum and they assume the people immediately to their right are "conservative," so that large group a bit further to the right must be "ultra" Conservative. 

Actually, Bob Burns is well within the category of "conservative".  In fact, he's toward the middle of the Senate Republican caucus--which is, of course, why they elected him as President.   He's a classic pro-life, limited government, Ronald Reagan Conservative.  But part of the media fantasy is to re-define the Republican caucus and make him part of an evil hoard.  And since the word "Conservative" still resonates well with the electorate, the media have to make conservatives look extreme by using "right-wing," "Ultra," "Neo-con" or my personal favorite "Uber."

So the saga begins.  A classic tale of good versus evil is beginning to unfold...

"In Ancient Times darkness ruled the land and the children of men groaned under rule of Evan Mecham while the Arizona Republic spoke truth from the tower of Pulliam.  A light shone briefly as Rose Mofford bloomed for a short time and then faded into dusk.  Darkness reigned from Symington to Hull; the children suffered and the universities darkened. Then after many ages when the light of man was nearly extinguished and the darkness loomed eternal, there came a light from the far away kingdom of Albuquerque.

Darkness was pushed to the corners of the land where it lurked and waited...it waited until the Light would be drawn to The One.  The One has called the Light and darkness once again has fallen on the land.  So begins the tale of Brewer..."

To be continued in the major newspaper near you...

Or, if you prefer, you can watch the local media's version of Governor Brewer's State of the State Address in which she and ultraconservative President Bob Burns address the Republican caucus. 

Comments

[Ron Gould]

My personal favorite is "Far Right Wing Ultra Conservative" closely followed by "Bible Thumping Fundamentalist".

[Jay]

Nerd!

[Jeffie]

Gregg, Plesse donn't attemppt to distroyy the Mother Toungue by mispellinng "Uber". It is bad enough that Americans delight in leaving out the umlaut over the "U".

Would we be so cavalier with Spanish words?

[nick]

Jamit boards the Unicorn Express!
Next service in Wonderland.

[Guy]

I think your argument cuts both ways. In many other places, the reporters you label "liberal" would be considered moderate but because Arizona's politics are so much further to the right than most other places in the US, moderates here are liberals.

That would certainly explain how anyone could consider Janet a liberal. By almost any measure she is a moderate Democrat but by the standards of Arizona Republicans she is far to the left. When I lived in Minnesota and New York I always thought I was a moderate. Here, where a particularly vicious brand of economic Darwinism rules, I am far to the left.

[Jim Torgeson]

Dear Jeffie;

I am currently learning Spanglish.

Please see definition of "bishop."

[Karen of Scottsdale]

What if all this handwringing by the newspapers is really a ruse? Maybe it's a setup so that when Napolitano doesn't get the coveted role in the Obama administration, it can be reported that she actually turned it down protect Arizona from the Republicans.

[todd]

Is it true that Brewer is planning to rescind Napolitano's executive order giving benefits to same-sex partners of government employees?

[Commander In Chief]

Are we sure there's no way to work out a job sharing agreement so that Janet can be governor and Homeland Security Director at the same time?
What's really amazing in this situation is that Arizona Republicans are jumping up and down, thumping their chests, and celebrating as if they'd actually beaten Janet in an election. What's sad is that the voters of this state overwhelmingly elected a highly qualified moderate Democrat. Now they'll wind up with an Evan Meacham supporter with no college education.
Maybe Janet could wait until January of 2011 to move to DC.

[Zelph]

My favorite is knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who flys a Confederate Flag above his double-wide.

[Sam]

CiC bashing on somebody for not having a college education? That's rich. He's only education is in Obamafellation.

[Dave K.]

Why would anyone be surprised by the media's response to the news of JNo's impending departure? They've been subtitled "the Napolitano cheer squad" since she took office.

The only things that really surprise me are that they haven't started hurling themselves from the tops of their ivory towers in despair, and that they still haven't figued out why they're all on the verge of bankruptcy.

[DGN]

Why shouldn't Republicans be happy? We got waxed nationally in 2008, but in Arizona did pretty well on balance.

But Republicans are not asking Janet to leave. Republicans are not walking away from a budget challenge. Republicans are not handing over the keys to the 9th floor - just accepting them.

Republicans are not abandoning their agency chiefs and executive staff to find new jobs. Republicans are not telling Arizona to handle things without the governor we so easily re-elected just two years ago.

Janet is doing all these things. And for that, Republicans get blamed for being happy that one of their own will soon be the chief executive.

What are we supposed to do, cry? If the tables were turned, Dems would be just as thrilled with the chance to take over. It's human nature.

The facts will bear out that Janet inherited a wobbly economic situation in 2003, rode the housing boom wave of 2004-06 and its massive revenues and lit outta town like a scalded cat when the fecal matter hit the rotary convenience.

Can't blame her, really. It's human nature.

[NetrootsDemocrat]

So, I take it that y'all actually prefer ALL the cuts to even a small across-the-board tax increase? Note: obviously 2/3 of AZ's legislature won't ever approve a tax in my lifetime.

I mean, c'mon, just how much government do you want Arizona to have? Ah, yes, not much more than in Wyatt Earp's day, huh?

This is crazy. We need higher taxes on the city, county, state, and federal level. Now.

[ron]

Greg describes the new president of the senate in the following manner:

"Actually, Bob Burns is well within the category of "conservative". In fact, he's toward the middle of the Senate Republican caucus--which is, of course, why they elected him as President. He's a classic pro-life, limited government, Ronald Reagan Conservative."

What part of government does Mr. Burns and his fellow 'limited government' GOPers want to limit?

Here is my fear. This crowd defines public safety as police, fire and border patrol. There are many other areas of public safety which should concern those who govern us and those who live under their goverance.

What about the safety of our water supply?

Anyone concerned about the 90 ton tanker cars of chlorine and other Class 1 hazardous materials being hauled throught the 5th largest city in the nation in rail cars that are getting older everyday? (Call the ACC and ask them how many inspectors are assigned to urban rail lines.)

How about your elderly parent in a nursing home?

I hope you don't end up in a local hospital which hasn't been visited by a DHS inspector for over a year.

And then there is child care - will inspection services be cut here too?

I am all for limited government - just don't put the my safety and the safety of my neighbors at risk.

[in the name off]

Let's all face facts here. To the left coast invaders JNO was not liberal enough. the real reason the Republicans are happy is that now SOMETHING will be done about the budget problem, not ignore it, because it makes you look bad. the real problem with JNO is that like a lot of left leaning politicians it's all about the message not substance, and please don't try to run cover on this you know it's true.

[mahtso]

To Ron -- When my elderly dad was in a nursing home our family members regularly "inspected" the facility and the care he received, we didn't depend on the government for that-- the same would be true for any kids in child care facilities.

I don't belief that the government can do what you want (assure that you and your neighbors have no risk to your safety) and even if the government could, the cost, in money and intrusiveness, is too high.

[in the name of]

Actualy this is a smart move for Mr. Obama.
He has named one of his political enemies, and an expendable govenor to posts that in the future he can blame, when IT happens. Hillary, disgraced at being 'reponsible' and fired will disappear, same for JNO.

[Commander In Chief]

The whole thing actually presents a very familiar scenario. An unelected, poorly educated, far right wing Republican takes control of the executive branch. Both houses of the legislative branch are controlled by the Republicans. They're so arrogant and so greedy for power, they act like they actually have some kind of mandate from the voters to rule with an iron fist and enact their agenda.
This scenario was a smashing success when it was enacted with George W. Bush in the role of unelected president, Dick Cheney in the role of drunken shotgun toting mean dude-in-charge, and the Hastert-Delay-Lott gang in charge of Congress. I'm sure it will be equally as successful in Arizona. Who wants to play Cheney? Got a shotgun?

[Sam]

Dipshit:

271-267
286-252

As your bretheren have been taunting for the past few weeks -- you lost. Get the #$@# over it.

[in the name of]

dude We all lost!!! Just get use to it. At least in our little corner of the universe we can start the patch up.

[ron]

mahtso,

In an ideal world, every elder and every child cared for in a state-licensed facility would have someone to care for them as you did for your loved one.

I have spent many hours in Arizona's care centers and I can tell you many people do not have the oversight of family members or friends. I found some of the worst care in the some of the trendiest zip codes in this county and some of the best care in some of the 'poorest' zip codes. Don't be fooled by the chandeliers in the entry ways.

The issue isn't the cost of oversight - the issue is the perception that there is little or no oversight. As soon as administrators of licensed instituations think that they can get away with care bordering on negligence they will.

[Jim Torgeson]

NetRoots Democrat;

Don't you think we should be responsible with what the tax money already spent before we hand over more?

If it is well spent, it wouldn't be a hot topic... but it's not.

[Ron Gould]

Pitty the poor liberals that can't make their point without ad hominem attacks.

[Commander In Chief]

Sam, get over it. Remember the scene in Crocodile Dundee where the mugger pulls out the switchblade, and his girlfriends says "he's got a knife?" Paul Hogan pulls out his two foot long Bowie knife and says "that's not a knife. This is a knife."

So let's review our numbers, since you seem to be obsessed with them.

2000:
Gore 50,999,897 and in second place, runner up Bush with 50,450,002.
Supreme Court: Bush 5, Gore 4.

That's not a knife, Sam.

2008:

Obama 66,882,230
McPalin 58,343,671
Electoral College
Obama 365, McPalin 173.

Aussie accent, now, Sam: This is a knife.

How about other numbers. 2004 United States Senate: 55 Republicans, 45 Democrats. 2008 Senate: 58 Democrats, 42 Republicans in the best case scenario for your side, 60-40 in the worst case scenario. Ouch. That's a knife.
2004 House of Representatives: 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats. 2008: 255 Democrats, 175 Republicans. Man that's a sharp knife, Sam.

Just get over it.

[Sam]

Ironic that you pull out a lame 20-year old movie reference, then tell me to get over it, when all the while you whine again about Bush being elected President by the USSC.

Maybe you need to get over it.

And gloat all you want, the chickens shall come home to roost in 2010.

[Russell Pearce]

AZ Governor “fiscally irresponsible”

For six years, Napolitano steered the state government toward a budget crisis.

She and the Democrat legislators with the help of a handful of moderate Republicans have increase the state budget by 59 percent from FY 2004 to 2008, while population and inflation, which grew by 30 percent. Growing the size of government to unsustainable levels and massive budget deficits.

As stated by the AFP, "With more than $11 billion in spending commitments (including formula spending increases and cumulative K-12 rollovers), and revenues unlikely to top $9 billion, the state government is looking at a structural deficit for FY 2010 of over $2 billion, or 20 percent of the state budget—one of the nation’s worst budget crises."

Napolitano’s real record:

A 17-percent spending increase in 2004, which occurred when Democrats and several fiscally liberal Republicans passed the Governor’s budget bill.

Spending that was dramatically higher than estimates provided by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and university economists.

"The Governor’s enormously unbalanced FY 2009 budget, which Arizona’s taxpayer watchdog group/AFP Arizona called “a $10.9 billion budget masquerading as a $9.9 billion budget,” at a time when revenues were projected to be $9.1 billion (the budget passed this June, with the help of all Democrats and a handful of fiscally liberal Republicans)".

A billion-dollar borrowing plan by universities. To paid for by the declining lottery sales.

The Governor actually requested a few hundred million from the federal government knowing the national deficit is around $9 trillion and out of control, which puts the taxpayers at further risk. There seems to be no respect for the taxpayer and families who actually work for a living and small businesses who also bear the brunt of these reckless spending policies.

The historic income and property tax cuts demanded by the Republicans that Napolitano signed in 2006 were tainted by the excessive spending increases she extracted from the Legislature in the bargain. For every surplus dollar in 2006 that was returned to taxpayers, two dollars went to new spending.

Napolitano has been reckless in her spending and the growth of socialist programs and is possibly leaving with a huge deficit. Had we controlled spending and kept it in line with population growth and inflation, we would have a surplus today instead of a deficit and that is in spite of the economy down turn, over spending is the problem not the economy for Arizona's huge deficit.

In Arizona voters have spoken loudly by electing a majority of fiscally responsible legislators and now we must protect the taxpayer and right size government, eliminate bad programs, go after entitlement programs, restore personal responsibility accountability, complete transparency in all government agencies, reduce regulation on businesses and allow the free market to work. We either stop automatic spending, reduce the cost of government or raise taxes.

I will not raise taxes. What we need desperately is to eliminate the 1998 Prop. 105 that forces automatic spending increases even in times when we cannot pay our bills and a Taxpayers Bill of Rights that places proper spending limits to no more than inflation plus population.

If we had a Taxpayers Bill of Rights in place since 2004 we would have a surplus today, not a deficit and would have returned $4 billion to the taxpayers, you know those that actually earned the money and allow them to keep the fruits of their labors.

[todd]

It is quite something to see people deny reponsibility for the forseeable outcome of their actions. Sure, it wasn't the irresponsible lowering of taxes below levels to fund spending and put money in the rainy day fund, it's those pesky voters and their initiatives which need to be fixed.

It will be interesting to see how voters will respond on the next two years to this sort of thing.

[Dave K.]

CIC:

AZ Senate:
GOP: 18
Dems: 12

AZ House:
GOP: 38
Dems: 32

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

[Dave K.]

Sorry, math was wrong in the House, and misplaced a digit too. Cut me some slack, I'm on vacation. Should be ...

House:
GOP: 35
Dems: 25

And you still don't bring a knife to a gun fight ...

[The Klute]

Sam,

Unlike my fellow liberals, I invite you and your fellow conservatives to not "get over it", and keep your roiling, indefatigable rage burning bright so you'll all think that Sarah Palin is the best and brightest flicker in that flame and make her your nominee.

I want Obama to win at least 35 states next time. And to have completely bullet proof majorities in the House and Senate.

[The Klute]

Hey Russell... Is that the speech you're going to give when you run in 2010 for governor?

[Sam]

Fixated on Palin again, I see. A nice, safe way to get back at the homecoming queen who wouldn't talk to you in high school. Given your obvious anger management issues (starting with those nice mature words you use on your blog that rhyme with "truck"), I can see how you were date- and laid-challeneged as an adolescent.

Much like 1992, the Republican party was defeated rather soundly. Like '92, the message was lost, the focus was lost, and the candidate was lost. Drunk with power and having similar control and majorities in both houses, Democrats promptly irked the American public and got their collective asses handed to them in the 1994 mid-term elections. It happened before and it's bound to happen again.

Meanwhile, we'll show respect to the incoming administration (of course, any measure of respect will be at least 20x the level respect given to GWB). We'll look back at the campaign, assess why we lost, focus the message on limited government, and move forward -- without Palin. We'll move on, unlike what your side has failed to do for the last eight years.

And you'll just have to deal with it. On the bright side, it'll give you the anger and vitriol to write some more horrid poetry that would make Kerouac roll over in his grave.

[NetrootsDemocrat]

"Pitty the poor liberals that can't make their point without ad hominem attacks."

Or Confederate Battle Flags in the "front yards" of our trailer parks, as a symbol of the biggest act of treason and, yes, terrorism, in the history of the United States of America. For if secession and the resultant terror spawned by the KKK as a result of that war does not constitute "terrorism", I don't know what does.

Yes, I am a liberal. A French-style, social democrat, well-regulated welfare state style liberal. And proud of it. But, as a constitutionalist (yes, one can be a constitutionalist and believe in a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause and a liberal interpretation of "promote the general welfare"), I am adamant that the Founders intended to enshrine the individual right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right as a human being. I own a few assault rifles myself. And I am gay and one of those scary scary liberals!

I no longer reside in Arizona. I saw the writing on the wall several years ago when good people who often were derided as the "Sue Nation" were ousted from power by the mouth breathers in the Right. But it pains me that a state I still consider my home and a state that I still love being ripped apart and made into a latin-american styled rich and poor and no middle class type of society. Once the inmates have control of the asylum once Janet leaves, my home state will turn into a country like Guatemala...only with a full-blown police state.

Oh how I long for Sue Lynch, Pat Connor, Becky Jordan, Susan Gerard, and even Propane Jane and Betsey Bayless. Goodbye, Arizona. It was nice knowing ya!

[NetrootsDemocrat]

Btw, Senator-elect Pearce:

Who are those handful of "moderate" GOP legislators who worked with the governor to irresponsibly increase the state's budget? Can you name them? It's easy to float accusations and use words like, "handful", without having the messy, i.e., controversial task of actually naming them of whom you refer.

This is very serious what is happening to Arizona. The state is gonna end up like the western US version of West Virginia. What cutting-edge company would want to start-up or re-locate to a state with a dummy, uneducated population as a result of slash-and-burn tactics.

I actually can understand the "state's rights" and "smaller FEDERAL government" conservative principles. But I think this "principle" has been so fervently adopted as part of an almost religion-like orthodoxy, that it has been guiding policy all the way down to as local as possible. Just when does it end? Just what sector or level of government is useful in these conservatives' opinion? Leaving out their creepy belief in always making sure there's enough money for an overbearing and intimidating police state and the necessary cruel private (read: greedy for profit human zoos) prisons?

I bet dollars to donuts not one so-called conservative can answer these questions without engaging in immature and hateful language that they consider "debate."

[The Klute]

Sam,

I'm just glad you're reading. And yeah, I know my use of the f-bomb doesn't carry the sophistication of "dips**t" here, but I'll try to do better.

"We'll move on, unlike what your side has failed to do for the last eight years."

Dude, your side is still speculating on whether or not Obama's birth certificate is real. And if Zogby is to be believed, Palin's the majority wants to nominate in 2012. So no, you're not (and that's the "royal" you, Sam) moving on, and you're not leaving without Palin.

Please, for the love of God, Republicans, keep that fire burning for the next 4 years.