Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Cowboy Up

The left was completely unhinged during the Bush Presidency and for a while, I actually thought they might be serious and not simply posturing for political purposes.  Silly me. 

In the last 24 hours, President Obama has conducted a federal raid that nabbed 2900 illegal aliens, shut down a marijuana dispensory in Phoenix and assassinated a US Citizen who allegedly had ties to Al Qaeda. 

The silence of the left is deafening.  Obama's conduct of these activities is much more aggressive than Bush's.  Seriously, mass deportations, assassinating US Citizens abroad?  And don't forget the invasion of Libya, stepped up drone attacks, signing statements, more aggressive stance in Afghanistan...not to mention permanent detentions in Guantanamo.

So for all those who whined about the Cowboy Presidency of George W. Bush, I simply say...Suckers!

Post Script:  If you want to get an idea of how controversial it is to assassinate an American abroad, check out this article from the Wall Street Journal.

Federal investigators needed a judge's permission to wiretap Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who became a leader in Yemen's al Qaeda affiliate. But to kill him in a drone strike Friday, the government could do so unilaterally.

 

They Should Use Their Phone Call to Reach E.J. Montini

When Arizona votes passed a "medical" marijuana law, Governor Brewer's administration made a good faith effort to implement the law.  At that point, Dennis Burke--the now former US Attorney--wrote a letter pointing out that marijuana is still illegal under federal law and that federal law trumps state law.  That means he could prosecute individuals who violated the federal law--even if they were in compliance with state law.

Naturally this put an end to state efforts to implement the new state law.  Then the left went crazy.  Montini claimed that Burke wasn't really threatening to enforce state law...Montini simply couldn't believe that the federal government would actually enforce the federal law and Montini went so far as to manipulate a Dennis Burke quote in an effort to argue that Horne and Brewer were being hypocritical. 

Now, despite the fact that Burke is gone, and much to E. J. Montini's shock, the feds are enforcing the law. 

A medical-marijuana clinic owner and his girlfriend were arrested after the Drug Enforcement Administration raided the Tempe facility Thursday morning.

Charges were pending. The two will most likely face charges of illegal distribution of marijuana, said Sanchez.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow's Montini column in which he points out that Tom Horne and Jan Brewer were right to advise caution and that his (Montini's) speculation that the feds would not enforce their own laws was both wrong and disastrous. Since Montini likes to give legal advice, maybe that couple who are now in jail could use their phone call to ask him for some help.

 

 

Line Up Alphabetically by Height

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson is leading the charge for yet another so called  reform measure...folks like Johnson have been "reforming" the political process for the last 30 years or so and every one of the reforms has backfired.  Now the pre-reform period is looked upon as a Golden Era of Arizona politics. 

Johnson doesn't even attempt to be honest about his "reform" package.  Check out this justification.

“Think about all the things that go on today,” Johnson said. “Number one, the districts are so gerrymandered that by the time the primary is over the election is done.

Gerrymandered?  That is, of course, complete bunk.  The current districts were drawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission, using criteria mandated by voters and approved by the Justice Department. 

So why aren't more of the districts competitive?  Remember the old joke that everyone should line up alphabetically by height?  That's funny because height and alphabetical order have no relationship to one another, so you can't form a single line based on both criteria. 

For some reason, people who understand that joke, don't seem to see what has happened with redistricting.  The districts have to be compact, respect communities of interest and be competitive.  Those criteria have no relationship to each other...in fact, they actually conflict. 

If you want to respect the communities of interest in Tucson and also make a district that is compact, the district is going to be overwhelmingly Democratic.  If you want to respect the communities of interest in Scottsdale and make a district that is compact, the district is going to be overwhelmingly Republican.

So what if competitiveness becomes the primary factor?  Then you will link Scottsdale with South Phoenix and the Catalina Foothills with South Tucson, Flagstaff with Kingman and Sun City with Buckeye.   The districts will be competitive and bi-polar.  They will not be compact and they will not respect communities of interest.  In fact, the only way to create competitive districts is to....Gerrymander them.  Which is, of course, NOT what we have...no matter how many times Paul Johnson claims otherwise. 

Post Script:  If Johnson's reform actually passes, it will have the opposite effect of what he intends.  It will dramatically strenthen the polical parties and make the legislature much more partisan.  I made those points here. 

Nothing Left but the Smile.

In a 2007 post about the future of the newspaper industry, I suggested that we look at the photographic film industry.  At the time, Kodak was in the midst of reinventing itself; film sales were way down, so Kodak said it was in the "picture" business...and moved on to making printers and cameras.  Of course, Kodak had no expertise in making cameras or printers, those products were simply  related to pictures, which was related to film. Kodak claimed that it would be able to survive, but I wasn't buying it.   Here's how I put it in 2007.

Kodak is done.  It's business model was geared to offer a product that no longer exists.  The company tried to convert its work force to provide a new type of product but the structures were inherently diferent.  There is no such thing as a film expert anymore, and a film expert doesn't become a digital camera expert simply because both products involve pictures.

Well Kodak's experiment with cameras fell apart pretty quickly, and now it looks like newest business model isn't viable either.  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Kodak is collapsing rapidly.

With its shares closing at their lowest level since the 1950s and investors bailing out of its bonds, Eastman Kodak Co. is under the heaviest pressure yet to prove it can pull off a plan to reinvent itself as a company that makes printers.

The newspaper industry is 5 to 10 years behind the film industry, but the path is the same.  People still consume information, they just don't buy newspapers. The newspaper industry will continue to cut costs and try to create other products, but in the end it will go the way of Kodak.  

Really?

The left is having convulsions over whether or not Olivia Cortes is a "real" candidate.  I can understand if they want to whine, but does anybody really think that the courts should have the power to remove an otherwise qualified candidate from the ballot because her reason for running doesn't satisfy the courts?  How about Ralph Nader or various Libertarian candidates--they are unlikely to win and oftentimes just run in order to make a statement.  Should they be removed? 

Let's say for the sake of argument that Olivia Cortes stands up in court and says..."I love Russell Pearce and I want to help him anyway I can, so when he offered to personally collect 100% of my signatures, I said go for it.  My goal is to have so many people vote for me that I spoil it for that goof ball Mr. Lewis." 

Are you saying that she should be removed from the ballot even though she is otherwise qualified?  Based on her goals?  Where does the court get this power to remove candidates for their goals?  Even if this power existed, is there a set of justiciable principles that would allow a reasoned judge to make an informed decision?  Where is the limiting principle--could a judge remove a Green Party candidate in a Democratic district, or a Libertarian candidate from a Republican District?  What if a Republican runs against Steve Gallardo or Kyrsten Sinema and says "I know I won't win, but I want to really screw up their Summer and make them spend a lot of money."  Can a judge toss the candidate because his goals aren't legitimate?

Really, is that what you want?

I'm seriously surprised that anyone would advocate this position and frankly shocked that a lawyer would actually file the case. 

Fast and Furious Went as Planned...

The media like to describe operation Fast and Furious as being "botched," yet as more evidence surfaces, it's becoming clear that the US Government itself bought the guns and sent them to Mexico. 

Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared.

This disclosure, revealed in documents obtained by Fox News, could undermine the Department of Justice's previous defense that Operation Fast and Furious was a "botched" operation where agents simply "lost track" of weapons as they were transferred from one illegal buyer to another. Instead, it heightens the culpability of the federal government as Mexico, according to sources, has opened two criminal investigations into the operation that flooded their country with illegal weapons.

Poor Manners

We are all born mean, selfish, condescending, sarcastic and rude.  Parents, relatives, teachers and church leaders have a full time job training children to be considerate and polite. 

I think sarcasm is the hardest to cure...and the worst form of sarcasm is the false appology or false thank you.  "Thank you for leaving all your dishes on the table...I needed more stuff to do before I finished my homework." 

Earlier today, I saw Russell Pearce's opponent Jerry Lewis on Sunday Square Off and Lewis was well mannered, soft spoken, polite and promised to run a "kind" race.  Naturally I assumed that he was serious.  Then I went through my in box and saw this email from his campaign.

For Immediate Release: September 24, 2011
Contact: John Giles

The Lewis Campaign welcomes Olivia Cortes to the race!  We wish her well, and formally extend our apologies to Ms. Cortes for not having provided the same generous level of assistance to her campaign given by Senator Pearce’s family and supporters.  We look forward to watching her interviews on some of the local stations, and to hearing her views in the debate on October 6th.  An active and civil discussion of the issues will be good for our city.

There it is, sarcasm in its highest form:  the false apology combined with a false welcome.  The Lewis campaign combines rudeness with its cousin, poor sportsmanship.  Lewis's camp doesn't think that Pearce is playing fair, so instead of simply trying to get out their own message, they are whining about their opponents and using a rather childish form of sarcasm to boot.

Mr Lewis grow up.  Stay classy.  Be a role model.  Be polite and show good manners, and stop whining about your opponent.  Just like you have taught kids in Sunday School for the last 20 years.

I'm sure that you don't think it's fair that Olivia Cortes is in the race.  Well, there are a lot of us who don't think it's fair that folks spent large (but undisclosed) amounts from presumably out of state (and undisclosed) sources in order to pay circulators to gather enough signatures to recall Senator Pearce.

Those of us who have been in this process a while understand that if you have enough money, you can recall any legislator.  And since Pearce has never had an unspoken thought, it's not like he campaigned one way and then voted another.  Russell Pearce the candidate is exactly the same as Russell Pearce the Senator. 

And speaking of manipulating the ballot, why isn't there a Democrat in this race?  Maybe it's because the LD 18 Democratic Party Chairman Andrew Sherwood wrote a column in the Republic advising LD 18 Democrats to stay out of the race.

I'm not running in the recall because I know this isn't the time to turn a nonpartisan election into one. I'm not taking the bait. Only a bipartisan coalition can defeat Pearce and give Mesa the type of representation it deserves.

It looks like some Pearce supporters may have put another candidate on the ballot in order to dilute the vote.  This was after the Pearce opponents publicly aired their plan to keep Democrats off the ballot in order to create a "bipartisan coalition" to defeat Pearce.

Naturally, the media have ignored Sherwood's successful efforts to keep Democrats off the ballot but have made a huge deal out of Olivia Cortes.  But hey, politics ain't bean bag and no one would expect the Republic--which printed Sherwood's request for Democrats to stay out of the race--to stay neutral. 

Jerry Lewis is a different story.  Man up Mr. Lewis.  Stop whining about the race. Stop claiming that you are going to be "nice" and "kind" while your team is sending out false apologies and sarcastic emails. Show us that you are mature enough to actually serve in the Senate. 

I would have assumed that your parents raised you better than this. 

Seven Year Niche

In the summer of 2004, my kids bought me an espresso machine for my birthday.  Not a fancy machine mind you; this one cost $30 at Target, but it made great espresso and I was soon hooked.  I've been drinking coffee since I was a kid, and the espresso was a nice change.  Many people claim that caffeine has no effect on them...that's not the case for me.  Caffeine makes me crazy.  I meet people for coffee quite often and there are scores of people who will tell you that by the end of the meeting I'm a completely different person.  I talk really fast; I'm passionate about issues and I get really animated.  I'm actually very careful to limit my coffee consumption, especially around clients.

You will recall that 2004 was an election year;  Bush v. Kerry was in full swing--and I was gradually going crazy.  I found myself calling my friends a few times a day and I wouldn't even say hi.  When they answered the phone I would say JOHN KERRY WAS NEVER IN CAMBODIA!

It wasn't long before my friends weren't taking my calls so I finally decided to limit myself to 3 espressos a day and to write my comments down and send them to my friends via email.

I eventually figured out two things:  First, email wasn't a good format, and writing a personal journal was even worse.  I needed a format that allowed me to write something, publish it and forget it.  The second thing I discovered was that my espresso machine defaulted to doubles.  I had been drinking 6 espressos a day--in addition to my regular coffee consumption--and talking politics for months.  I was running out of friends, getting really irate and couldn't get my resting pulse rate below 100.  I was also cussing a lot.

I remember walking into Stan Barnes'office and announcing that there was "no F***%ing way that John Kerry could have earned 3 purple hearts in 6 months and that I was starting a blog."  He asked what the heck a "blog" was and then asked me what I was going to call it.  I explained that a blog was short for "Web Log" and that people used them to write down their thoughts.  He rolled his eyes and asked what I was going to call it...I thought for a second and blurted out that I was going to be the Espresso Pundit.  He thought that the entire concept--especially the name--was the dumbest thing he had ever heard.   

I procrastinated for a while and then the Arizona Republic wrote a fawning article about "Mainstream Arizona".  That was a group that was going to raise a bunch of corporate money to help moderates win their elections.  The group was going to accomplish this by "educating voters about the stances of politicians."  I thought about it for a second...since the group was formed to help moderates win their elections...wouldn't they be advocating on behalf of candidates?  Isn't that illegal?

Sure enough, Mainstream Arizona's candidates got crushed and the AG started an investigation into the group's use of corporate money to advocate for candidates.  The Republic completely ignored the story.  Mainstream Arizona ultimately paid a large fine and had to return the money that it received from corporations--many of which were non-profits whose non-profit status had been jeopardized by the electioneering.  Again, the Republic--which gave fawning before the debacle--ignored the story. The scandal involved some of the biggest names in Arizona Politics and the Republic literally never wrote another word about Mainstream Arizona. 

I was about to explode.  I went to Office Max, bought a copy of Microsoft Front Page and put together a primitive website.

Today marks the seventh anniversary of that first post. 

Writing Espresso Pundit has been one of most enriching experiences of my life.  Every time I get upset about an issue, I just have a big cup of coffee--I long ago gave up pure espresso--and just write my thoughts down, post them...and then forget about them and move on with my day.  I don't listen to talk radio, watch Fox New, read other local blogs or talk politics.  I just post my thoughts and move on.  The fact that other people read them is just gravy.  I would write espresso pundit if Stan Barnes, Marc Spitzer and David Schweikert were the only ones who read it...just like the old days. 

There have been a lot of changes in seven years.  Most of the Republic's political team is gone--and the folks that replaced them are gone too.   The Tribune and Citizen are gone.  The Star is down to 19 reporters (and 17 editors).   Most of the moderates are gone...John Kerry and John Edwards are laughingstocks.  Pete Rios still doesn't live in that trailor.  I went to law school, but still don't know how to spell or capitalize properly. 

The Republic never held Mainstream Arizona accountable...it was chaired by a guy named "Grant Woods".   I seem to recall that his name recently showed up in the paper.   And if his name hadn't showed up in the paper it would have shown up in the blogs...which these days is just as good.

Thank you for being part of my life for the last seven years.

Investigate This

We've all seen the wall-to-wall Bundgaard coverage.  I believe that the legislature should be pretty aggressive about policing the behavior of its own members and should hold them to a high standard.  The Bundgaard case wouldn't have even gone forward but for the courageous vote of Senator Steve Yarbrough who deserves cudos for being the deciding vote to initiate the hearing. 

Senator Shapira was out of town for the vote and when I read the story that said Shapira wasn't coming back...I said to myself...that's not the last time you are going to hear those words. 

But profiles in courage and examples of lameness aside, I have a question about the ethics process:  If the Senate--and the media--have decided to invtestigate Bundgaard why has the House and the media ingored State Representative Daniel Patterson?   Patternson's wife alleges drug use and verbal abuse and it's widely known that Patterson doesn't live in his district. 

Here's some info on the court case.

The Judge admitted photos from Schaffer’s attorney of what she said was marijuana paraphernalia that Schaffer found in the legislator’s home office.

 “His basic behavior would be he’d come home, smoke marijuana, watch TV, and be on the phone all at the same time,” Schaffer testified when asked about Patterson’s interactions with their daughter. “She’d be completely ignored.”

Steve Yarbrough and Ron Gould were willing to step up and hold Bundgaard accountable, so where is the comparable courage on the Democratic side?

 

It's In His Nature

At this point in the Clinton Administration, I was sure that Bill could never be re-elected.  The health care debacle, loss of the House and Senate, Genrich Revolution etc. made it clear that Clinton was just another Jimmy Carter.  But then he triangulated, drove a wedge between the Republicans, moved to the center, reformed welfare, bit his lip and voila...re-elected.

I had assumed that President Obama would follow the same playbook. but it's clear that tacking to the center is so fundamentally against his nature that he's incapable of executing the maneuver that saved Clinton.