Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Politics Ain't Bean Bag

People who work in a political environment without the requisite experience oftentimes get burned because they don't realize what full-contact politics entails.  The most common newbie mistake is not understanding that in a political environment everything is connected to everything else.  People are surprised when they cross someone in one arena, and that person retaliates in a different arena. 

There's an email going around the capitol that provides a little insight into how big-league hardball is played by the pros.  Chuck Coughlin is President of Highground, one of the state's premier lobbying firms.  Ken Cheuvront is a very savvy State Senator.  Chuck sent this email out last week. I've printed Chuck's original email and Sen. Cheuvront's response.  (Each with permission.)

Re:  Cheuvront Hypocrisy

Attached are the documents which were before the Arts, Culture and Historic Preservation Subcommittee of the Phoenix City Council.  The staff report recommends denial of a grant request for Actors Theatre Phoenix in the amount of $250,000.  Lobbying the Council on behalf of the Actors Phoenix was none other than the hero of anti subsidy legislation, State Senator Ken Cheuvront. Who happens to be on the Board of the Actors Theatre and owns a restaurant which caters to the Theatre crowd.

I testified against the proposed grant. The reasons that I gave were as follows:

1. It is an unbudgeted item and there are no funds.

2. If additional funds are available they should go to public safety, after all Phoenix voters are being asked for a 2/10 of a cent increase to fund public safety in September.

3. It was hypocritical for Cheuvront to be supporting and lobbying the Council for this grant, when he actively opposed legislation which would have lightened the public safety tax burden SB 1353 which provided matching funds for public safety expenditures during major events.

4. It was additionally hypocritical for Cheuvront to be supporting a grant which would in all likelihood benefit his business which has arts patrons who eat at his restaurant for dinner. The Actors Theatre is in jeopardy of going under without additional funds.

Prior to my testimony Mr. Cheuvront asked me why I was there. I responded in the same manner he spoke to Doug Cole from the Senate Floor regarding SB 1353. Mr. Cheuvront looked at Doug who was in the gallery just prior to voting on SB 1353 and said “Cole your bill is going down”. I told Mr. Cheuvront today that I was there to see that his grant was going down.  To which he responded he never said such a thing, to which I responded saying “yeah, just like you didn’t call Patrice Krause a bitch”. I told him he was out of control.

He assured me that I did not want an enemy like him. To which I responded, that I have had a lot bigger enemies than him.  At which point he left the hearing room and did not return.

Councilman Simplot and Councilman Linger decided after testimony to forward the proposal to the Council for their full consideration without taking a sub-committee vote (it was clear that Lingner was not inclined to support the proposal).  It appears that the issue will be before Council sometime in September after the summer recess and after the voters of Phoenix vote on Proposition 1.

Staff recommendation was for denial.  There was a reporter present in the room. I will not be dining at Cheuvront’s in the near future and I am looking for volunteers to start my car for the next few weeks (I’m kidding on the last one).

Happy Summer,

JCC

Here's Sen. Cheuvront's response.

Greg,
  I was really amazed about my confrontation with Mr. Coughilin.  It was totally unexpected, and it took me by surprise.

  First, I am no longer on the Board of Actors Theater.  I was helping move their grant through the city of Phoenix because they have been adversely affected by the light rail construction, and construction of the new convention center.  Last year the city awarded grants to the Symphony, Ballet and Opera because they were displaced because of the convention center.  Actor's Theater was trying to also get help to get them through the next two years of continued construction.

  Second, Chuck needs to learn the differences between tax giveaways to for profit retail developers and grants to non-profit theater companies.

Third, Chuck is mad because I supposedly said to Doug Cole that his bill was going down.  I don't think that I knew that it was Doug's bill.  I am sure that he said something to me from the gallery or put a thumbs up on the bill, and I said that the bill was dead.  I am not sure a person in the gallery can discern a tone from the floor of the Senate.  Doug must have great hearing. It was not meant to be personal.

Chuck and Doug are mad at me because I and my conservative colleagues do not believe that we need to give Glendale a million dollars to help defray their Super Bowel security cost.  Tax payers in Maricopa County have already built the Bidwells a stadium, and we don't need to also pay for their security.  Let Glendale foot the bill.  It is not a State concern.

Fourth, Chuck is really grasping for straws if he thinks that the viability of this theater company has any impact on my restaurant.  If I really wanted to help my restaurant short term, I would have tried to help
kill the light rail.   If anything is impacting my business, it is the construction of the rail on Central.

We are not sure we know how Chuck found out about my support of the issue, but we suppose that Peggy Nealy is the one who told him.  She is still mad at me for going against the $100mil giveaway to City North.  Although my bill does not address this travesty, Clint is putting together a law suite that will hopefully stop it.

At the end, Chuck helped me out.  The city staff and others were astounded by Chuck making his opposition about me and not about the theater group.

Chuck continues to be his own worst enemy.  He does not know when to leave politics at the capitol.  For every action there is always a reaction. I try to always be much more subtle in my reactions.

Ken

Here's What Really Happened to the Immigration Bill.

Before you can understand this story...

Lawmakers killed the Senate immigration bill today, voting 46 to 53 to move to a final vote on the controversial measure, 14 short of the 60 required.

The defeat is a setback for the bipartisan team of lawmakers who worked for months to craft a bill they hoped would draw enough support from both parties to pass. It represents a blow to President Bush, who threw his full support behind broad immigration reform and whose Cabinet played a key role in shaping the legislation.

You need to be able to understand this picture.

And what, you might ask, is significant about this picture?  Well that's Senator DeMint talking to Congressmen John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra.  Undoubtedly, they are discussing this.

And even as the Senate moved forward, House Republicans late Tuesday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution opposing the immigration bill -- a move that could place a significant roadblock in front of the measure even if it clears the Senate.

By a vote of 114-23, the House Republican Conference approved a statement by Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan that simply read: "Resolved: The House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill." The vote came during a closed-door meeting.

It was the HOUSE Republican Conference vote that ultimately derailed the Senate Immigration bill.  House Democrats needed some cover and they weren't going to pass the bill without significant support from House Republicans.  With no chance of the bill passing in the House, the Republican Senators didn't want to be on record against their House counterparts so they voted against cloture.  Unable to end the debate, the Senate Democratic Leadership was forced to pull the plug. 

What the CNN fails to mention is that it is unheard of for the House Republican Conference to take a position on a pending Senate bill.  In fact, the House Leadership had no intention of hearing the Resolution. 

So why would the House Republicans vote on a resolution against a Senate Bill over the objections of their own leadership?

That brings us back to the picture of DeMint, Hoekstra and Shadegg.  Pete Hoekstra's name is on the Statement, but why would Sen. DeMint be discussing the Republican Conference vote with Shadegg?  That would be because of this. 

This is the signature page from a Resolution that reads in part:

"We the undersigned Members of the Republican Conference, hereby request a Conference meeting to consider a resolution disapproving of the Senate's immigration bill..."

The resolution has 25 signatures.  That number is significant because of this.  This would be the rules of the House Republican Conference which reads in part.

A resolution which has 25 or more signatures of Members shall be considered by the appropriate Conference committee as soon as practicable and reported back to the Conference.

Dang, there's that pesky "shall" word which trips up so many people who have their head in the sand.  The leadership "shall" consider the measure if it has 25 signatures. 

And whose signature is on the top line of the Resolution that forced the Republican Leadership to schedule a vote on the Statement that led to the demise of the Immigration bill? 

John Shadegg.

It was Shadegg who came up the the Resolution.  It was Shadegg who knew the rules and gathered the 25 signatures.  It was Shadegg who forced leadership to vote on the Statement and it was the Statement that led to the defeat of the bill in the Senate.

One guy...a guy with a rule book in one hand and a grenade launcher in the other...that's what really happened to the immigration bill. 

My Mom is So Proud

While I am still trying to decide what to be when I grow up, my younger sister has been kicking some serious corporate butt.  She's Vice President and Controller of RSC Equipment Rental and just helped take them public.  Here's a picture of her at the opening bell on the day they went public.  She's pretty easy to find on account of her being the only woman on the platform. 

Which Side Would you Want to Err On?

Well, this is awkward.

On June 8, his wife, Rebecca, asked doctors to remove his food and water tubes. But Jesse's family took her to court, and a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered the tubes reconnected and appointed an independent attorney to mediate between the families and to talk to Jesse's doctors.

Now, he can hug and kiss, nod his head, answer yes and no questions, give a thumbs-up sign and sit in a chair.

Republicans were roundly criticized for their conduct of the Terri Shiavo affair but where is the national outrage over near killing of Jesse Ramirez?  Think what a tragedy it would have been if the wife's demands to starve Mr. Ramirez to death had been accomplished.  How often does this happen? 

So we now have two diagnoses that are widely viewed as mistakes.  The pull-the-plug crowd will argue that Terri Shiavo was clinically brain dead and that her food and water should have been removed much earlier. 

Mr. Ramirez is alive when last week doctors were one the verge of starving him to death. 

Mistakes happen.  But as for me, I want to err on the side of life. 

Frankly Speaking II

Last April, I received a copy of a beautiful, 11x17 glossy, four color, full bleed mass mailing from my Congressman Harry Mitchell.  The piece was designed, printed and mailed at taxpayer expense.  On April 11th, I made this observation. 

Congressmen are allowed to use the US Postal service to send mail to their districts for free.  This "franking" privilege is an important right, but it is subject to abuse.  Over the years constituent communications have begun to look more and more like campaign brochures and less and less like constituent communications.

I recently received this email from Congressman Jeff Flake. 

Greg,

It was your blog post that spurred introduction of this legislation.  Keep it up!

Jeff

The email included a link to this article.

WASHINGTON - Laws dating to the earliest days of Congress let lawmakers send out official mail to constituents for free. That privilege, known as franking, is supposed to help lawmakers answer questions from voters and keep the people they represent up to date on business in Washington.

But much of the franked mail that goes out in a typical year - an average of nearly $22 million from the House and $3.2 million from the Senate - looks like the campaign mailings that pile up in election years.

A bill introduced this week by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., would let voters see how much their lawmakers spend on mass mailings.

Flake, long a critic of wasteful government spending, spent far less - $1,406 - on mass mailings in 2005 than most of his Arizona colleagues, who spent tens of thousands of dollars or more on franked mail. Two Arizona congressmen, Republican John Shadegg and Democrat Raul Grijalva, did not send any franked mail in 2005.

Mailings within 90 days of an election are prohibited, but that leaves the rest of the year to send out tailored messages.

A Congressional Research Service report found that mass mailings peak just before the deadline, as members rush to squeeze in more publicity.

"By the very fact of placing a story in your junk-mail newsletter that you're doing so many good things for your district, that's already building positive regard," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Alexandria, Va., that advocates for lower taxes and objects to franked mail's cost. "It subverts the principle that challengers and incumbents ought to be on a reasonably equal footing under the law. They're not."

Flake admits his bill might not get very far in a Congress where Democrats and Republicans alike indulge in franking.

Party leaders sometimes privately encourage members to send out mailings. But he hopes better disclosure about the costs might shame some lawmakers into restraining their postage costs.

"It's very difficult to get any campaign reform that benefits challengers, but this is something that I think when the public knows how bad it is, they'll demand a change," he said.

Lawmakers in both parties take advantage of the free postage.

The National Taxpayers Union produces an annual study of House office expenses, focusing closely on franked mail. The most recent study found House members spent almost half as much on taxpayer-funded direct mail to voters in the 2003-04 election cycle as challengers spent on their entire campaigns in those years.

The average House member spent more than $50,000 on mail in 2006. The average Senate office spent about $34,000, according to the Congressional Research Service study.

The National Taxpayers Union's 2005 study found Flake spent only $4,782 on mail that year -the vast majority on letters, not mass mailings - and ranked him the 7th most frugal House member for office expenses.

Flake says he sends out mass mailings only to announce things like deadlines to apply for U.S. military academies.

Of Arizona lawmakers, only Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican, ranked in the top 20 for mass mailed franking. He spent $124,270 in 2005, according to the group.

Even if it became law, Flake's bill might not make a dent in the flood of mail coming from Capitol Hill.

Consultants who work on franked mail say their clients get hardly any criticism from voters who receive mailings.

But Flake is pushing forward nonetheless.

"Every decade or so, it just becomes so blatant or so bad that the pendulum swings back the other way, and I think we're there - or we're almost there," he said.

Come On Guys, this is Getting Sad

No one can reasonably expect the major newspapers to be as accurate as the blogs, after all, bloggers have much more experience and better qualifications than reporters.  But one would expect that the levels of bureaucracy at major newspapers would at least provide a check on fundamental errors.

Take the Republic's story on the Immigration bill sitting on Governor Napolitano's desk.  The point of the story is that Arizona has passed one of the strictest bills in the country.  The entire story is built around the Draconian features of the immigration bill.  Unfortunately for the Republic, the reporters used the House version of the bill for their story. 

(In a bicameral (two chamber) system, bills have to get the approval of BOTH the House AND the Senate in order to be forwarded to the Governor.  The Senate has the ability to change (amend) House bills and only the language that BOTH chambers agree on can become law.  So writing a story based on the bill as passed by the House can lead to, you know, mistakes.)

Here's the statement that the Republic uses to demonstrate that the Arizona law is one of the two strictest in the country.

Introduced by state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, it requires each business to sign a sworn affidavit that it does not employ undocumented workers. It imposes fines up to $150,000 for filing a false statement.

Prosecutors would be required to act within three days on written complaints alleging illegal hiring.

Well, the first part's right.  It's a Pearce bill.  However, the other three parts--the affidavit, the fines and the prosecutorial requirements--were eliminated from the final version. 

This is the second example this week of a "never mind" mistake.  That's a mistake that is so fundamental to the article that the entire reason for the story disappears. 

Last week the Republic's Pat Kossan lamented the fact that the International Baccalaureate program bill died--when in fact it was moved to the budget.  Editorial writer Joel Nilsson then relied on the incorrect story when he wrote a "quick hit" complaining about the Legislature's myopia. 

So here's note to the editorial board.  If you are going to write about the Draconian employer sanctions bill, make sure you read the final version.  Or just keep reading the blogs.

Can a Nice Guy Finish First?

The Star has a good profile of Senate President Tim Bee. 

For a guy who is, by all measures, the most conservative elected Republican in Southern Arizona, state Senate President Tim Bee has built a network of approval.

Hardly anyone — not even Democrats — has bad things to say about him.

Hugh Hewitt on Jon Kyl

Arizona’s Jon Kyl, perhaps the single most effective and principled conservative in the United States Senate, is the model of what every senator should be –smart, hard working, humble about his occupying the office, and aware of the obligations of that office. He is also a gentleman and a scholar –a genuine authority on Constitutional law, and a man of genuine character. Kyl’s also a fighter for conservative causes, especially the fortunes of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Jon Kyl is also the workhorse for the GOP caucus on the immigration bill, doing his best to make the bill as workable as possible from the position as point man of the minority party.

This unenviable task has earned Senator Kyl an enormous amount of enmity from very vocal opponents of the bill, especially those for whom the issue is the single most important piece of legislation. Suddenly Jon Kyl’s impeccable record on the war, cutting taxes, the life of the unborn, spending restraint, and of course judges matters not at all, and the airwaves are full of spleen. The attacks on Kyl haven’t just been harsh, they have been full of the sort of venom usually seen in the fever swamps of the left directed at George Bush for waging the war against the Islamist jihadists.

If I was a member of the United States Senate I would not vote for cloture on the immigration bill, even though this version is bound to be much better than the version that failed to gain enough votes on the last go around. I wouldn’t vote for it because the border fence “trigger” is only 375 miles instead of the 700 authorized by last year’s border security bill. There may be other reasons to oppose the bill, but in an on-air conversation yesterday with Senator Kyl –the transcript is here —the senator indicated that many of the other major problems in the bill are being worked on. Whether those fixes are sufficient to remove some of those concerns --such as the treatment of illegal immigrants from countries with deep jihadist networks in the same fashion as illegal immigrants from Mexico—remains to be seen. Senator Kyl is clearly working to improve the bill as much as is possible.

For this effort he deserves thanks. This will evoke many comments denouncing Kyl as a turncoat and a traitor, but the obvious utility of making the best of a bad situation needs to be mentioned here, and more than merely mentioned, praised.

If the bill is going to pass the Senate, I want it to be the least bad bill possible.

If the bill is going to pass the Senate, I want as many of the drafting errors corrected and loopholes closed as possible.

If a GOP senator has to lead the effort to put lipstick on the pig, I want that senator to be the smartest, most principled senator available.

I am grateful to Senators DeMint and Sessions and Thune and others for blasting away at the bill and forcing the debate to be serious and sustained. But I am also grateful that Jon Kyl has the spine necessary to stay in there and take the heat so as to keep the improvements coming. It would have been far easier for him to side with the conservative critics of the bill and leave the negotiations and drafting to, say, Lindsey Graham. Instead he is doing the conservatives and border security advocates a great, great --if completely unappreciated-- service, and doing so without any of the outbursts that have marked other proponents of the bill.

Kyl isn’t complaining in the least. He isn’t whining. He isn’t attempting to deflect or dodge, and –and for this I am greatly appreciative—he isn’t ducking or dissembling. He answers the questions candidly and repeatedly, and when told that he hasn’t persuaded, he acknowledges his regret but doesn’t get angry or testy or even combative.

Kyl has not branded opponents of the bill as racists or nativists. He hasn’t condemned talk radio. He hasn’t refused interviews with critics. Kyl is taking the pounding like a senator should be willing to do when he’s opposite many of the folks who sent him to Washington.

I don’t expect many among the bill’s opponents to accept this perspective, but it makes it no less true. Jon Kyl is doing the hardest thing in politics –standing against his base for reasons of personal conviction and perhaps against his every political instinct in order to do his job as best he sees fit. I appreciate him for the manner in which he has done so, even if I can’t agree that the end result deserves to become the law of the United States.

I really, really wish I and others had persuaded Senator Kyl and through him the majority of the Senate of the absolute necessity of building all 700 miles asap, regardless of expense. When the I-10 Freeway collapsed in the aftermath of an earthquake in California, then Governor Pete Wilson didn’t worry about bidding rules and costs, he let a contract with a huge premium for early completion. And the job got done early.

A broken border is much more important than a broken freeway, but there is none of the urgency that should attend the construction effort. Senator Kyl, Secretary Chertoff, President Bush and other supporters of the bill just don’t see the great upside that I and others do in getting that fencing erected and the Border patrol expanded in record time.

But when the debate is over and the bill either passes or is defeated, Jon Kyl is the same guy who stood rock solid since the war began in defense of the prosecution of that war and in support of the troops, in defense of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and scores of other judicial nominees, and on the side of countless other conservative causes over a dozen years in the Senate and eight years in the House. He deserves much better than he is getting. When he writes that “If I were the only one writing this bill, it would be very different,” he has earned our trust in his good faith.

We don’t owe Senator Kyl our agreement or our silence, of course, but we do owe him a hearing and a respectful though vigorous and full-throated dissent, one that is coupled with a recognition of his past, present and future service. If you have trouble giving him both, then you have lost track of the central proposition that distinguishes conservatives from the far and sometimes not-so-far reaches of the left: Justice.

Pullen His Punches

Folks like to criticize Randy Pullen for taking on the Congressional delegation but he occasionally pulls a punch.  Here's quote from an interesting article from the London Times that details McCain's troubles. 

Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican party, said: “He’s a battler, so I’d expect him to carry on, but everyone is waiting to see what his new fundraising totals are. That’s pretty critical. If he doesn’t have the money, he won’t be able to run.”

I think that's a fair assessment.  Immigration is discussed later in the article, but there's no mention of amnesty. 

McCain is learning that the Gray Lady is a fickle mistress.  You can do well with the intelligentsia if you turn against the base, but when you eventually acknowledge the party regulars, the New York Times crowd moves on to a fresh "maverick."

John McCain's Very Bad Year

McCain is best known for his support for the Iraq war, the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill and the McCain/Feingold and Campaign Finance reform law.  The first two have clearly been an albatross and now the Supreme Court has slapped him on Campaign finance reform. 

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.