Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

The Text Speaks for Itself

There's a rumor going around the Capitol that Ken Bennett is reconsidering his potential run for Governor.  So I asked him about it. Here's the exchange.

 

Tricks of the Trade

Congress and the Legislature are routinely held in low esteem, and while some of these low marks are earned, some are the results of subtle tricks that the media use to manipulate readers.

Let me provide a hypothetical example and then we can apply it to a real world situation. 

Let's say that a bunch of us are going to play in a charity softball game.  Before the game begins, I gather the teams together and remind them that we are playing for charity and that kids are attending so we need to set a good example of courtesy and sportsmanship.  Then after I hit a foul ball, I scream at the umpire and claim that the ball was actually fair and that he's an idiot. 

Result?  That's an obvious example of hypocrisy.  I called for a higher standard and then I didn't follow it. 

Now let me change the example a bit.  I gather the teams together and say that the games have been taking too long and that we should adopt a two-strike rule instead of the traditional three-strike rule.  The group rejects my suggestion.  Later, when it's my turn at bat, I get a second strike and the umpire tells me I'm out.  I respond that we didn't adopt that rule, no one else is following that rule and I want to follow the three strike rule until we change it.

Am I a hypocrite?  After all, I suggested a course of action and then didn't follow it. The obvious answer is that I am not a hypocrite.  In the first example, I suggested a standard of behavior and then didn't follow it.  In the second example, I suggested a new rule that applies to everyone.  That rule was not adopted and we remain under the old rules.  I am not a hypocrite for following the old rule and I remain free to recommend new rules. 

The media like to use these examples interchangeably in an effort to make Legislators look bad.  Check out this Capitol Times article about State Senator Steve Gallardo.

Since getting caught up in the Fiesta Bowl scandal of 2011, Democratic Sen. Steve Gallardo has been the Capitol’s gift ban crusader, repeatedly introducing legislation to make it illegal for lawmakers to take free tickets or meals from lobbyists.

Although he’s one of the loudest and most consistent voices at the Capitol arguing for a crackdown on lawmakers for accepting benefits from lobbyists this year, Gallardo still accepted free tickets to a NASCAR race and meals from lobbyists.

Did you catch the trick?  The Gallardo story is clearly a case of my second example.  Senator Gallardo is asking for a rule change.  The legislature has rejected that rule change and Gallardo is following the old rule.  There's nothing wrong with that. 

Capitol Times uses another subtle trick as well.  Notice the first sentence?  There's two things wrong with it.  First, it's simply not accurate.  Legislators were not "caught up" in the Fiesta Bowl scandal...the Fiesta Bowl management and lobbyists were caught up in the Fiesta Bowl scandal.  The essence of the scandal was that the Fiesta Bowl management and lobbyists invited Legislators to games and assured them that the games fell within the "Special Event" exemption.  However, the management and lobbyists didn't follow the rules for Special Events, so the legislators attending the games ended up in the newspaper.  I know that you will roll your eyes if I say that the Legislators were victims of the Fiesta Bowl management's incompetence, but that's what happened.  Gallardo was never "caught up" in the scandal; he relied on the assurances that the management had followed the rules. 

The second trick of that first sentence is that it's a non sequitur.  Capitol Times is listing two events that are in chronological order and implying that one caused the other.  Does Gallardo claim that he is pushing for new legislation AS A RESULT of being (falsely) "caught up" in the scandal?  I think not. 

The author of the story wants you to think that Gallardo did something wrong, then when he got caught, he became a crusader for a higher standard of behavior, but he doesn't hold himself to that standard which shows that he's a hypocrite.  That narrative is completely fabricated. 

But I bet it helped sell a lot of papers. 

Cox Communications: Your Friend for Digital Rage

I've always been impressed with New Times.  In decades past, the reporters didn't engage in corporate  group think, so they actually broke some interesting stories.  Later, the paper's anti-establishment views occasionally put it at odds with the Napolitano Administration which was at least somewhat interesting.  Now the paper simply resorts to name calling...stories about Governor Brewer refer to her as "GED Jan" and a "hag".  The current issue is a full blown McCain smack down.

New Times is also impressive because it seems to actually make money.  Sure, most of it is from car alarms and plastic surgeons, but their money spends too.  Then there's the "legitimate" corporate ads.  Cox Communications for example sponsors an ad on the cover of the paper that makes it look like it's sponsoring the whole paper.

This is what I describe as "Legacy Advertising"--corporate auto pilot from the days before New Times' latest name calling iteration.  No one in Sandy Springs, Georgia has made the connection that John McCain is the most influential Senator with regard to the Cable industry, and that New Times is the biggest thorn in McCain's side...and that Cox Communications sponsors New Times.  I would have thought that someone at the local level would have figured that out...but I guess not. I'm sure it's not going to be a problem...McCain is a calm guy with a short memory, so I'm sure it will all work out.   

 

Perfect Monopoly

Occasionally, I have a story that I'd really like to cover, but it affects a client, so I keep quiet. For example, I haven't written about the extraordinary monopoly in Arizona's ambulance industry because I've been working on the issue on behalf of a company that would like to provide competitive ambulance services.

The story is so compelling that I knew it would come out eventually anyway.  Now it has. Tempe has now realized that the market is controlled by one company and has decided there's no need to conduct an RFP. It's an amazing story. Here's the Republic's version.

Only one company is competing for Tempe’s lucrative contract for ambulance services to support the Fire Department.

The Tempe City Council chose to allow only Professional Medical Transport to compete for the contract because city officials believe that the state’s approval last year of Rural/Metro Corp.’s purchase of that company effectively ended competitiveness in the market.

Then a strange thing happened...Rural Metro bought all the other companies. Then they hired a team of the best lobbyists in the state in order to prevent the law from being changed. Frankly, it's a brilliant move.

This session, I worked with a client that wants to break into the inter-facility transfer market. Inter-facility transfers are scheduled transports of stable patients who aren't able to ride in cabs, private cars or stretcher vans. They are by definition, non-emergency transfers, but they still require an ambulance. And that ambulance has to be licensed as an "ambulance". The problem is that it is statutorily impossible to break into the market...which like I said, was fine until Rural Metro bought the other companies.

Our bill to open up the market to competition didn't even get a hearing. Then we managed to get a study committee amendment on a bill...but that was stripped off immediately. Eventually Speaker Tobin created an Ad Hoc study committee to look at the issue this summer.

That's going to be fun. Folks who support the closed market argue that the artificial monopoly in inter-facility transfer helps keep 9-11 emergency rates lower. We point out that this is clearly wrong because the market was competitive just a few years ago. Not to mention that in Phoenix, the fire department handles the emergency calls and Rural Metro only handles inter-facility transfer. There's obviously no cross subsidy that's paid from Rural Metro to the Phoenix Fire Department.

Opponents like to characterize efforts to eliminate the monopoly as "deregulation" That' not true either because all of the quality regulations that DHS enforces would still apply to new entrants...just like they all applied to the other market participants before Rural Metro bought them.

The only statutory change that proponents are seeking is to eliminate the requirement that prevents competing companies from obtaining a license. So far, making that change has been impossible...and even setting up a study of that change has been extremely difficult.

Maybe the Legislature will act after more cities like Tempe cancel their RFPs because they realize that there's only one alternative.

Thoughts on the Comments

I'd like to take a few minutes and share my thoughts on comments.  I think readers enjoy having the comment section open, and although they often tick off my mom, I think they add to the overall quality of the blog and I'd like to keep them open.  However, we need to go over a few rules. 

Some comment rules should be obvious.  I remove comments that are clearly spam "Low Priced Air Jordans", and I remove profanity and threats.  It's ok for people to use fake names, but not if they are fake names of real people who aren't famous.  So if someone wants to be John Wayne or Tom Cruise, that's fine.  If someone wants to be Chad Campbell or Olivia Cortes, that's not OK.  And please stick to one alias--if you want to make it look like a lot of people agree with your opinion, then you need to find actual other people, not just comment under a new name.  And please don't post comments that hijack the thread. 

Irrational Basis

The Republic's Linda Valdez claims that Governor Brewer's legacy will depend on giving driver licenses to "Dreamers."  Valdez has attempted to support her claim by referring to the recent District Court decision, but since she's not an attorney, she doesn't understand the meaning of the key legal term that she (incorrectly) uses as the foundation of her argument.  Here's the line she quotes.

But if the State chooses to confer licenses to some individuals with deferred action status, it may not deny it to others without a rational basis for the distinction.”

Valdez doesn't understand what the legal term "rational basis" means, so she thinks the ruling went against Brewer.  So Valdez adds these snarky lines.

You don’t even have to read between the lines.

But why wait for another day in court? Save the lawyers’ fees.

Here's the real explanation.  The Constitution guarantees "Equal Protection" but has to recognize that laws don't affect people equally.  That's why we can have different income tax rates, or some people are allowed to be Doctors.  So how does the court decided when it's OK to treat two people differently under the law and when it's not?  The Court has established two main "Standards of Review" the first one is called "Strict Scrutiny" and applies to laws that differentiate based on racial factors.  Almost nothing survives "Strict Scrutiny."  The state has to prove that there is no possible other law that could accomplish this purpose.  The state always loses. 

The weak standard is called "Rational Basis."  The state nearly always prevails under this standard.  In order to comply with Rational Basis, the state merely has to show that it had some reason, any reason for making the distinction.  Basically, if the Governor did anything other than flip a coin, she will win the case. 

That means that when the court sets the Standard of Review, it determines the outcome.  If the Court says the law will face Strict Scrutiny, the state will lose.  If the judge (as in this case) says the law must have a Rational Basis, then the state will win.  Here, the judge has handed Governor Brewer a legal victory and Valdez thinks it's a defeat because she doesn't understand the basic rule. 

One more reason why you are less informed if you read the papers. 

Why are Federal Authorities Following AZ's Attorney General?

Corporate media have a herd mentality, and reporters were having so much fun mocking Tom Horne for his baseball cap and speculating about his possible girlfriend that they never asked the real question.  Why was the FBI following the Arizona Attorney General?

The FBI's stated reason--that they were following him in an investigation of possible campaign violations in the 2010 campaign--is absurd on its face.  If Horne coordinated with the Independent Campaign that spent money on his behalf, he would have done so in 2010.  There's no reason to follow him after the election.  Maybe this article from the March 18th Republic provides a clue.

Arizona has a steady record of wins defending its laws before the U.S. Supreme Court in the past few years.

Arizona has been a thorn in the Obama administration's side and it's Tom Horne who has been twisting that thorn.

Fast forward to the FBI following Horne and releasing information about a minor traffic incident complete with salacious details about baseball caps and possible girlfriends.  Don't reporters know the history of the FBI? That's a casebook Hoover tactic.

Naturally, many of you are rolling your eyes and saying I'm paranoid.  Just like when folks questioned the initial Benghazi stories, or when the Tea Party folks complained that they were under enhanced IRS scrutiny, or when the Associated Press reporters finally figured out that the Justice Department was tracking their phone calls.

If you study history, are familiar with current events and are skeptical--which are allegedly the qualities of a journalist--then you will realize that the FBIs tracking of Horne in an effort to discredit the pesky AG falls well within the FBI's history of bad behavior and alligns closely with the Obama Administration's current pattern of abusing power.

To break that story, reporters wouldn't have to compare Horne to Arias, they would simply have to compare President Obama to Presidents Johnson or Nixon.  Now that's a comparison that might actually be worth making.

 

What Does Dennis Welch Have in Common with Charles Manson?

Wow, that was wildly inappropriate. 

Of course, it got your attention and if that's all I cared about then it might be worth it.  Dennis Welch is the political reporter for KTVK Channel 3 and if I'm going to point out that he has something in common with an infamous killer like Manson, then I had better be able to point to one of the characteristics that makes Manson infamous.  Otherwise, it's just a cheap trick to get your attention.  Such stunts are unprofessional and tawdry--especially when they are conducted by "real" reporters at "real" news organizations.

So check out this promo that Dennis Welsch and "AzFamily" channel 3 are running.

You can watch the promo here. I've had reports that KTVK is also running the Horne/Arias comparison on freeway billboards. 

You will recall, of course, that Horne backed into a car and didn't leave a note.  After the event was disclosed, Horne paid a $300 fine.  The media is in full feeding frenzy.  Let's see, Jodi Arias stabbed her boyfriend 26 times, cut his throat and shot him in the head.  Tom Horne backed into a car near Pita Jungle.  But the Dennis Welch "AzFamily" comparison is actually more trivial than that. Welch makes it clear in the promo that the Horne/Arias comparison is about the TIMING of Horne paying his $300 fine.  Horne paid the fine at the same time that the verdict was announced, so the media was forced to choose between covering Arias's murder verdict and Horne's $300 payment and incredibly, they chose Arias. 

Welch is portraying the timing as some sort brilliant Machiavellian PR move and that's what generated the comparison between Horne and Arias. Such a comparison is completely unprofessional.

But it gets worse.  Welch brought an "AzFamily" film crew to Tom Horne's HOUSE in order to ambush him and ask him about the timing of his payment of his traffic citation.  You can't make this stuff up.  Seriously, doesn't the journalism community police itself?  How can it be within the profession's ethical standards to compare the timing of the Attorney General's traffic citation payment to the most notorious killer of the year and then show up at the Attorney General's house and ask him about it on camera?  Welch then makes a big deal about Horne closing the door in his face.   Welch and the "AzFamily" folks should simply be ashamed--and I hope the rest of the journalistic community is embarased.

There's another aspect of the story that I'm going to make into a separate post tomorrow.

Why Were Federal Authorities Following the Arizona Attorney General?

Corporate media have a herd mentality, and reporters were having so much fun mocking Tom Horne for his baseball cap and speculating about his possible girlfriend that they never asked the real question.  Why was the FBI following the Arizona Attorney General?

The FBI's stated reason--that they were following him in an investigation of possible campaign violations in the 2010 campaign--is absurd on its face.  If Horne coordinated with the Independent Campaign that spent money on his behalf, he would have done so in 2010.  There's no reason to follow him after the election.  Maybe this article from the March 18th Republic provides a clue.

Arizona has a steady record of wins defending its laws before the U.S. Supreme Court in the past few years.
 
Arizona has been a thorn in the Obama administration's side and it's Tom Horne who has been twisting that thorn.

Fast forward to the FBI following Horne and releasing information about a minor traffic incident complete with salacious details about baseball caps and possible girlfriends.  Don't reporters know the history of the FBI? That's a casebook Hoover tactic.

Naturally, many of you are rolling your eyes and saying I'm paranoid.  Just like when folks questioned the initial Benghazi stories, or when the Tea Party folks complained that they were under enhanced IRS scrutiny, or when the Associated Press reporters finally figured out that the Justice Department was tracking their phone calls.

If you study history, are familiar with current events and are skeptical--which are allegedly the qualities of a journalist--then you will realize that the FBIs tracking of Horne in an effort to discredit the pesky AG falls well within the FBI's history of bad behavior and alligns closely with the Obama Administration's current pattern of abusing power.

To break that story, reporters wouldn't have to compare Horne to Arias, they would simply have to compare President Obama to Presidents Johnson or Nixon.  Now that's a comparison that might actually be worth making. 

Introducing the Arizona Political Report

For the last five years or so, I've wanted to establish a print version of Espresso Pundit.  My friends always responded..."Print?  You mean on like actual paper...that you put in the mail?"  Yep.  Actual print. 

Sure, mainstream, general circulation, least common ddenominator,  corporate group think newspapers are dying.  However, niche papers are actually doing pretty well. 

I believe that there is a large market comprised of people who are interested in politics and would be interested in additional coverage and analysis but who just aren't interested in blogs or other web-only content. 

So I have finally followed through, and the good folks at Americopy are mailing the first edition as I write this.  In the future, the paper will not be available on line, however here's a copy of the first edition.

One problem with print is that it is expensive, so I have to charge a basic subscription rate.  In this case, I'm charging $25 annually and I will be distributing the paper on the second Friday of each month.   The best way to subscribe is to click this link and use Paypal.

One advantage of Print is that it allows me to really expand the coverage.  I've often complained that the mainstream newspapers only focus on the big issues like AHCCCS expansion, or the trivial issues, like so called guns in bars or who gets to use which restroom.  There are literally hundreds of important bills that don't get any coverage.  I'm also concerned that the mainstream papers only portray legislators in a negative light. 

In response, I've invited guest columnists to discuss issues that they think are important.  I think you will enjoy the comments of Dick Foreman, Sydney Hay, Paul Walker, Greg Hopley and Marc Ashton.I think you will also enjoy the perspective the Jason Rose and Barbara Lockwood add to the debate about Net Metering and the future of the solar industry.  And don't miss the columns by John Kavanagh and Betsey Bayless about the proposed AHCCCS expansion.

In addition to guest columns and Point/Counter point by industry and political leaders, I've included a week's worth of Espresso Pundit columns for those of you who might have missed them.  I've also added two features that I think you will enjoy.  The first is what I call the "Real Facts of Life."  These are lessons that I've learned over the years and that I've shared with my children.  They are light proverbs and stories that have provided important lessons for me and my children and I thought you might enjoy reading them.  I plan to publish one story in each edition.

Finally, I've included a feel good story that didn't receive any attention.  A few weeks ago, the lobbyists and the legislators played a charity softball game in order to raise money for the Phoenix Children's Hospital.  Steve Trussell, Director of the Arizona Rock Products Association, organized the event and hired a professional photographer.   I thought it would be fun to show you a side of the Legislature that you are unlikely to read about in the mainstream papers. 

I want to thank my first round of advertisers as well as Steven Heywood at Americopy for his tremendous help and support. 

I hope that you will consider subscribing to the Arizona Political Report and if you would like to provide guest commentary, submit photographs, send story ideas, or buy advertsing, please contact me at gpatterson3@cox.net

Hypocrite of the Year

We are still early in 2013, but I can't imagine that anyone will catch up to Republic Editorial Page Editor Robert Leger for my Hypocrite of the Year award.

Recall that Republic Cartoonist Steve Benson drew a picture of the Cleveland basement horror scene with the role of Ariel Castro played by the GOP.  You can see the cartoon here. 

The cartoon is an abomination and fails the rules of civil discourse on so many levels.  No matter how much you disagree with someone, it's not appropriate to compare them with the most evil men our world has produced.  It's simply uncivil and unprofessional for an employee of a major newspaper to compare the Republican party to Ariel Castro. 

It's also not professional to characterize someone's views in a way that serves to both demonize your opponent and cheapen real crimes. For example,  Benson labels one of his victims "No Contraceptive Coverage."  Sure, that's just the same as being held as a starving sex slave for a decade.  And the guy who held them captive is just like the GOP guy who opposes mandatory contraception coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act.  Golly, there's like no difference.

The Benson story has gone national and that's were Robert Leger comes in.  The Daily Caller's Tim Cavanaugh asked Leger about the cartoon, before you here Leger's response, here's a little background.

In the immediate aftermath of the Giffords shooting, "civility" was all the rage.  Robert Leger was working at the Scottsdale zone at the time and also attended the Scottsdale Leadership class.  Together those organizations led the charge to introduce civility to public discourse--with Leger playing a prominent role in both organizations.  In fact, their publicity packet is still available.  Here's how Leger described the effort.

The commitment includes hearing out others and speaking calmly without losing the passion of their position or resorting to personal insults.

Leger went on to announce that the Republic was sponsoring an essay contest for young people to discuss how they would improve the public debate. 

Wow, thank goodness that the Daily Caller's Tim Cavanaugh went to Leger for the quote.  In addition to being the person responsible for the contents of the editorial page where the Benson cartoon ran, Leger has publicly called for increased civility, speaking calmly and not resorting to personal insults...you know, like calling your opponent a sex slave holding serial rapist. 

Leger's response to the Daily Caller?

Opinions editor Robert Leger, however, told The Daily Caller the cartoon “stands on its own” and that the cartoonist seeks to make strong statements.
 
“Steve’s cartoons are often among the things that draw the most comment,” Leger said. “This one was not unusual in that regard.”

So much for civility.  So much for discourse that doesn't insult or personalize.  So much for an essay contest on improving public discourse.  Benson is simply making "strong statements" that "draw the most comment" and this one is "not unusual."  And he has the full support of Robert Leger.

The debate is only going to get more civil when those in power--like Pulitzer Prize winners who draw for the largest publication in the state and the editors who enable them--decide to hold themselves to their own standards of civility.  Leger set the standards. Leger called for civility.  Leger announced the essay contest and issued the call to avoid personal insults and then when Leger was in a position of power and someone on his team issued the ultimate insult, Leger defended his work in the national press.

For that he wins the Hypocrite of the Year award.  If he questions it, I'll point out that it "Stands on its own."