Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid.

Check out this ominous Tweet by the Republic's Elvia Diaz.

 

That guy on the left is Salvador Reza.  He and his group have been threatening Arizona boycotts for as long as I can remember.    Meanwhile, Arizona's economy hums along.

But be warned.  "They aren't kidding."  Seriously.  They aren't kidding this time.  I mean it.  Really. 

Here's an article from 2005.

 

 

Painful, Traumatizing and Perverted

Check out this Tweet from Meghan McCain

 

 

That's right.  It's painful, traumatizing and perverted.  And when overused, it's also boring and a sign of lazy analysis and weak writing.  

The worst example of this painful, traumatizing, perverted, lazy and weak use of John McCain is the Republic's own EJ Montini.

Montini hated the McCains and viciously trolled John and Cindy for years.  Here are a couple classic examples. 

Ouch.  I mean that's some bitter, nasty, pent up stuff.  No wonder McCain refused to talk to anyone from the Republic.  

Now check out how many times the pandering EJ Montini has used McCain as a pawn in his columns since the Senator's death.  Serious question, why does the Republic keep this guy around?  Click here for a larger version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Republic have a Cyber Policy?

I figured out why I haven't seen much from the Republic's  Daniel Gonzalez on Twiter.

 

 

 

Of course, I haven't seen anything from Rebekah Sanders in a while.

 

 

So I've been wondering what the Republic's Cyber policy is.  

Surely they have a Cyber Policy, of course since these guys are still around...maybe not.

 

 

 

 

 

Time for the Annual "Sleeping Giant" story

For the last couple decades the Republic's Daniel Gonzalez has been writing "Sleeping Giant" stories.  Here's the latest breathless iteration.  

Here's a 2010 post in which I first took on this fantasy

Here's what I wrote about Daniel's 2014 version. 

Here's my post about his 2016 fairy tale. 

Or we could go way back to this one from 20 years ago.  

Meanwhile, SB 1070 is the law of the land--and the Legislature is about to send it to voters so that they can enshrine it in the Constitution.    Tucson--yes Tucson--rejected a Sanctuary City proposal by a 70% to 30%.  And did I mention that Donald Trump is President?  

Not even trying to play it straight.

Check out this "news" lede.

WASHINGTON — Hoisting the spoils of victories in California’s hard-fought water wars, President Trump is directing more of the state’s precious water to wealthy farmers and other agriculture interests when he visits their Republican Central Valley stronghold Wednesday.

Sure that's fair.  Trump is "hoisting the spoils of victories" by giving "precious" resources to "wealthy" farmers in a "Republican stronghold."    

Or maybe he realized that bankrupting businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of workers so that fresh water can flow into Sacramento Bay isn't a good policy.  And he made the change without hope of political return because he could never win California anyway.  

Watch out for the adjectives that journalists use in order to manipulate you.

 

 

 

 

 

What's the Republic's Policy on Twitter Blocking?

The media get themselves all in a lather whenever an elected official blocks them....what with a free press, the First Amendment and all that stuff.  So you can imagine my surprise when I wondered why I hadn't heard from the Republic's Rebekah Sanders in a while and found this.

When will the Republic Investigate Rebekah Sanders?

Here's an interesting line from yesterday's Yellow Sheet Report. 

Journalism, as a whole, has a code of ethics that states you can’t cover someone you’re romantically involved with. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, states that journalists must maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest, “real or perceived.” When conflicts are unavoidable, journalists must disclose them. For example, look to the Republic’s Rebekah Sanders, who left the Congress beat after she and Dem consultant Rodd McLeod started a relationship (the two are now married).

This is supposed be be an example of Journalists doing the right thing as compared to Legislators who let these types of conflicts continue.  On the contrary, I believe the Sanders story is one of the Republic's greatest ethical failures.  Sure, they point out that Sanders "left the Congress beat after she started a relationship with a Dem consultant."  But he doesn't say if Rebekah Sanders did both--dated a Democratic Consultant AND covered Congress--and if so, for how long.

In 2014, Rebekah Sanders wrote a series of obviously false stories about Congressional Candidate Gary Kiehne. Here's what I wrote about it at the time.   Kiehne was a wealthy candidate who would have been a formidable opponent in a general election contest against Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick.  But Kirkpatrick never had to face Kiehne because after Sanders' stories, he lost the primary election by a few hundred votes.  Kirkpatrick faced a financially weaker opponent in the general election and went on to win the race.  Kirkpatrick later hired Rodd McLeod as a campaign consultant and spokesman.  

Were McLeod and Sanders dating when she wrote the stories that resulted in the defeat of the strongest opponent of her boyfriend's future client?  Did she date McLeod while covering Congressional races for the Republic?  If so, how long was she doing both?  In how many of those races was McLeod a paid consultant?

We will never know.  That's because while the legislature is hiring investigators to get to the bottom of these conflicts, the Republic simply transferred Sanders to a new beat and then moved on.   The Journalism profession CLAIMS to have high ethical standards, but these are rarely enforced.  Let's see some transparency about the Republic's handling of Sanders' conflict--then the reporters can start lecturing Legislators about ethical conflicts. 

We don't need Oscar speeches on the Sports Page

Few celebrities or celebrity athletes have done more for Arizona than Phil Mickelson.  I've been shocked at how quickly the Arizona Republic has turned on him.  Here's what the Republic's Kent Somers had to say about Mickelson's decision to play in the Saudi Invitational.  

It’s about choosing to play in the Saudi International instead. An “invitation” to play in that tournament includes a hefty appearance fee. And all an athlete has to do for that fee is play a little golf and valet park his conscience.

Save it for your Oscar acceptance speech Kent.  No one cares about your politics. 

It turns out that Kent is not only wrong about injecting his political views on the sports page, but he's also wrong on the merits.   

Today's Republic article serves as a rebuttal to the first article--while slamming Mickelson yet again.

Mickelson improved his world rank to No. 72 thanks to a tie for third while sportswashing for the sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and will rise higher on the strength of his solid play in the AT& T Pebble.

Hmm.  He's more likely to qualify on the merits because of his strategic decision to play in Saudi Arabia.  Let that sink it.  He could have played in the Waste Management Open, but it's unlikely that he would have finished third.  So his decision to work his way to the Open by doing better at a smaller tournament was a strategic victory.   

Cold and timid souls like Kent Somers can criticize men like Phil Mickelson all they want. But let me ask you this Kent.  Who makes your phone? Perhaps children in China?  Where  does your gasoline come from?  Who made that shirt your are wearing?  Do you eat meat?  Drink milk?  Where are your retirement funds invested?

You are quick to condemn Phil Mickleson for his strategic decision to improve his chance of qualifying in the Open by playing in Saudi Arabia, but where's your sacrifice?

We don't need your Oscar speech and we don't need to be lectured by someone who does as much to prop up China and Saudi Arabia as the rest of us.  

Stick to sports.  And if you are going to write about the struggles, challenges and successes of someone like Phil Mickelson, do it with a little much-justified humility.  

Harvest This--Updated

Here's a thought experiment.  Let's say that the Koch brothers have a plan to help as many Republicans candidates as possible.  How should they do it? They should register voters in Tempe Arizona.   Arizona is a swing state so every Republican that you register in Arizona helps President Trump.  A new Arizona Republican also helps Martha McSally. 

So far so good.  However, it matters WHERE you register that new Republican.  If you go to the Fountain Hills craft fair and Register Republican voters then you have helped Trump and McSally, but you are done.  CD 6 is safely Republican--Despite Brahm Resnik's fantasies.  LD 23 is safely Republican although a Republican is going to need to step up and run against Ugenti in case she implodes even further after the Primary.  

So the Fountain Hills craft fair is a fine place to register Republicans but it's not ideal.  The Tempe craft fair is the most important place in the country to Register voters.  In addition to helping Trump and McSally, (and the county races) a new Tempe Republican can help swing CD 9, Protect the currently Republican District 17 Senate Seat and the Republican LD 17 house seat, plus potentially win the other District 17 house seat.  Or--depending where this new voter lives--he can help Republicans retake District 18.  A new Tempe Republican pays dividends up the entire ballot. 

Ok.  So I buy a table at the Tempe Craft Fair and put up a big sign that says "Register to Vote Here."

That's a really bad idea.  That's because there are more unregistered Democrats in Tempe than there are unregistered Republicans in Tempe.  So I would spend the day helping the Democratic Party.  

So I change the sign to "Repeal Obamacare" and I put out a bunch of petitions.  The Democrats ignore me, glare at me and occasionally spit at my feet.  Who signs my petition? Republicans.  Then I say "Thank you for signing, we have a very important election coming up.  Are you registered to vote?"  When they register, I also ask them to sign up for an early ballot. 

Let's say that I register 1,000 people--five of them are Democrats who wanted to keep their Doctor and the rest are Republicans, Libertarians and right-leaning independents.  

I photocopy the cards and then turn all of them in to the county elections department.

I now have 1,000 right leaning voters who will get early ballots in the 2020 election.  

If I ended right there, it would be pretty effective.  But I want to be REALLY effective, so a couple days before early ballots drop, I send them a post card thanking them for registering and reminding them how important it is to repeal Obama Care. (If you want to learn more about this technique, read Influence by Robert Cialdini).

Next, I wait a week and check the county's list of returned early ballots and cross them off of my initial list of 1,000 new right- leaning Tempe voters. 

Let's say that 400 people turn them in and I'm down to 600.  I send another post card and I'm down to 500.  Then I send a post card to the 500 and have my paid staff call them.  OK.  I'm down to 200 right-leaning ground zero voters who have ignored 3 post cards and a phone call.  What's my next move?

I drive to their house and ask them for their ballot.  That's right.  I have all the addresses, so I put on a white shirt and tie and bring my symbol of authority--a clip board--and knock on their door.   I say something authoritative but honest.  "I'm with the voter outreach effort and our records indicate that you received an early ballot but that you have not returned it yet.  I'm here to collect it."

Naturally, the voter says that it's been on the desk but that they haven't had a chance to fill it out.   My response?  "That's fine.  Would you prefer that I wait or would it be better if I came back this afternoon?"

I gather the last 200 ballots and I drive them to the County Elections department and I turn them in.  Voila, 1,000 new Republican votes in Tempe.  

What do you think of my plan?  It's all legal and it's very effective.  Do you think it goes too far?  Do you think that it's OK to show up at your house after you ignored my three postcards and phone call?  Do you think that it's OK to tell you that I'm coming back to your house if you don't give me your ballot now?

No, it's not OK.  Some people chose not to vote.  That's OK.  State law protects people while they are in the polling booth.  That's why we have 75 foot limits.  I'm not allowed to stand by you at the voting booth.  I should not be allowed to show up at your house and tell you that I want your ballot and that I'm happy to stand here until you fill it out.  

That's how ballot harvesting really works--and that's why it should be illegal.

 

Update:  Remember that the scenario above is LEGAL.  There are a handful of shenanigans that would be illegal and that ballot harvesting bans are designed to prevent.  Here's the ways that operatives can violate the law but make the prior scenario much more effective.  These are all real examples.

Recall that when we screened voters using the "Repeal Obamacare" sign, we still got a handful of other party forms?  In my scenario, we turned them all in.  A common abuse is to discard the other party's registration forms. 

In my example, I show up at the door in a white shirt and clip board and say something legitimate but authoritative.  We have had examples in Arizona in which people showed up at the door and claimed they were from the Maricopa County Elections Department. Illegal but effective. 

In my example, when the voter said he didn't have ballot ready, I said I would come back.  Operatives can offer to "help"  the voter, or they can say that they are collecting blank ballots for "security purposes" and then fill them out later.  

Finally, unscrupulous operatives can collect ballots from both parties throughout the district and then sort them into Republican voters and Democratic voters and either discard the ones from the other party, or simply mail them in late.  

These tactics are illegal but are enabled by ballot harvesting.  

 

 

 

 

  

Elvia Diaz wrote the most important column that you will read this week.

It's rare that you read something really fresh.  I would urge you to read this Elvia Diaz column.  I'm sure that you have noticed that Fox and MSNBC report wildly different facts.  However, if you really want to see a factual divide, you should watch Spanish Language News and compare it to English Language news.  

Many English speakers, of course, don't speak Spanish well enough to follow along with Jorge Ramos and Univision.  Elvia Diaz can follow both and she prints some interesting facts that you might not realize.  

Most of her column is built around this fact about Bill Clinton. 

Pro-immigrant groups and others conveniently forget that former President Bill Clinton paved the way for Trump's 'public charge' rule.

Let's not forget that Clinton was an immigration hardliner.

Next, you might not know this fact. 

And don’t forget that another Democrat, President Barack Obama, ended up deporting so many immigrants that earned him the “deporter-in-chief” title. 

That's right.  Despite all that you have heard about DACA, Obama was an immigration hardliner. 

Here is Elvia's next line

Not to mention the fact that he passed up the chance to push for immigration reform when Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Do you know that story?  I doubt it.  Recall that when Obama came to power the Democrats controlled the House and Senate--and most importantly, they had 60 votes in the Senate.  But Obama only had enough political capital to ensure the passage of one giant policy change.  He had promised the Hispanic community that he would force Comprehensive Immigration Reform into law.  However, at the last minute he switched to Obama Care.

This was a huge strategic blunder.  Not only will the Hispanic community never forgive him, but also think of the effect he would have had on the electorate.  How many new citizens would have been in the US in 2016 if Obama had forced comprehensive immigration reform into law in 2008?  Trump would have lost the election.

Meanwhile, Obama Care is in tatters and the Democratic Presidential candidates are running away from it.  

I wrote about two of those stories in 2012.

Most Unreported Story: Obama's Mass Deportations

"Deportations under the Obama’s watch have increased in record numbers, according to the survey. Nearly 400,000 immigrants are deported annually since Obama assumed the Oval Office, a roughly 30 percent higher annual average than his predecessor George W. Bush."

The story is unreported because it doesn't fit the media narrative that the Republicans are in danger of becoming a permanent minority because they are alienating the Hispanic Community.  If you watch any episode of Al Punto with Jorge Ramos, you will realize how disappointed the Hispanic Community is with the Obama Administration.  In addition to deporting over a million people, he violated his promise to pass comprehensive immigration reform and instead forced through his health care plan.