Democratic Diva

Per WaPo Politics:

“He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially” in the book, Brewer explained to reporters Wednesday. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt.”

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation, said that Obama told Brewer he would be happy to meet with her after receiving her invitation. However, the official added, Obama “did note that after their last meeting, a cordial discussion in the Oval Office, the governor inaccurately described the meeting in her book.”

The book is what the book is. The meeting is what the meeting was. The two don’t seem to agree.

Accounts of the June 2010 meeting on immigration between President Obama and Governor Brewer right after it happened are in accord with the White House official’s description. Here’s Tucson Sentinel reporter Dylan Smith’s report from June 3, 2010:

The media lead-up to Thursday’s meeting between Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Obama would have you believe that some sort of ultimate showdown was about to occur.

The Washington Post said that the pair “brace for a tense meeting.”

ABC called it a “face off.”

Over at Fox, it was a “showdown.”

“A very cordial discussion,” was how Brewer described the meeting afterward.

So much for a Frankie Goes to Hollywood “Two Tribes”-style throwdown over illegal immigration, then.

“We agreed to try to work together in order to find some solution” to border security issues, the Arizona governor said after the meeting.

But that doesn’t make for good hagiography slingin’, does it? That meeting was turned into a showdown in Scorpions for Breakfast and Jan Brewer was transformed into a cross between Gary Cooper and Penelope Pitstop.

“We sat down and started with some chitchat,” she writes. “But after a few minutes, the president’s tone got serious – and condescending.”

Brewer’s magnum opus was ghostwritten by Jessica Gavora, wingnut welfare recipient, who had distinguished herself prior to Scorpions by contributing a wingnutty essay about the horror of unmarried women to a collection of wingnut welfaristarian diatribes about threats to freedom.

Obviously Gavora, a writer with so prodigious a talent for right wing spin, wasn’t going to let a meeting between President Obama and Governor Brewer taking place at the height of the SB1070 hubbub escape with a mere “cordial” description. Oh no. It had to be so much more epic than that. It looks like Governor Brewer wasn’t prepared for the possibility of President Obama being briefed on Gavora’s embellished account of their meeting in 2010. Not that it will matter to her fans but it should matter to people who report on political matters here.

Rep. Terri Proud, a Tea Party freshman in the Arizona Legislature, is sponsoring a bill allowing an elective course on “Biblical influence”. Here’s the language and your Diva has indicated the salient portion:

So teachers, you are not required to use a specific version of the Bible. I recommend this one: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

– Rick Santorum

Iowa’s eventual winner, Santorum, came in third in South Carolina. The winner was the guy who proposed an open marriage to his second wife because he didn’t want to give up his mistress.

Per Jamelle Bouie in American Prospect

This was the Gingrich that Republicans love. A confident, combative firebrand, who exudes a persona of erudition, even as he offers an incoherent take on the world, the issues, and the views of his opponents. To wit, Gingrich accused Barack Obama of believing in a “Saul Alinsky European radicalism where the stage is sovereign and we are its subjects.” This is absolute nonsense—Obama is a center-left Democrat with centrist instincts—but it sounds correct to he audience. They were thrilled.

Indeed, the enthusiasm was infectious. Everyone I spoke to was either a long-term fan of the former House Speaker, or a new supporter, who was eager for Gingrich to win the nomination, and—as one attendee said—“destroy” Obama in debates. “I like him because I really enjoy watching him debate…he could just tear people apart and be really intelligent about it. And I would to see him do that to Obama”, said Cathy Nichols, a local high school student who plans to vote in Saturday’s primary.

For everyone I talked to, I asked if they were concerned about the recent revelations from Gingrich’s ex-wife, who alleged that the House Speaker wanted an “open marriage.” Chuck Gregoire, a semi-retired internet marketer, had a response that was pretty typical of the reactions I received. “We really need someone to come out and kick some but, and I think that’s really where the country is now, and he’s got the ego to get it done.”, said Gregoire. He clarified—he wouldn’t “trust him with my wife,” but he does believe that he could lead the country and correct for Obama’s presidency.

Brian and Cathy Renaud, who moved to South Carolina from Michigan after losing their homes to the Great Recession, were also dismissive of the allegations against Gingrich. “I think we all see through the media’s ploy,” said Brian, “Putting her up to talk two days before a primary? Give me a break.”

As popular feminist blogger and Facebook friend of mine Amanda Marcotte observed: “‘Family values’ is code for “putting bitches in their place”. Gingrich’s behavior is consistent with that.” South Carolina GOP primary voters preferred Gingrich to Santorum because Gingrich comes off as a tougher opponent against the Kenyan Usurper, not because there’s any difference between the two on the culture war. Individual liberty and privacy are reserved for straight white Republican men. It’s “radical”, to use Santorum’s description, for people who aren’t straight white Republican men to have those things.

That’s it in a nutshell.

I had been swapping newspaper stories with Olivia Ward of the Toronto Star on one of the saloon’s overstuffed leather couches as the bar filled with attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) 2011 States and Nation Policy Summit (SNPS).

ALEC had repeatedly refused to grant me media credentials. Nevertheless, I was a paying guest at the resort and thought I’d catch some liquor-loose-lipped lawmakers and lobbyists at the bar.

I was about to turn in for the night when I saw Phil Black, director of Kierland’s security team, talking with a group of Phoenix police officers outside the entrance to the bar. The cops–moonlighting (in uniform) for ALEC–had arrived close to an hour prior, glanced in at Ward and me, and stationed themselves just to the side of the door.

Black entered the bar and came up to me. “Would you mind coming with me, sir?”

Doesn’t every great story of freedom and democracy start with that request? That quote is from a Jan. 11 In These Times article, in which reporter Beau Hodai describes being treated roughly by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) security guards and the management of the Westin Kierland Resort and Spa in Scottsdale, where ALEC held its annual conference. Bodai goes on to describe what went on in the conference:

Inside, Arizona House Majority Whip and ALEC State Chair Rep. Debbie Lesko kicked off her remarks on the Novartis stage with open mockery of ALEC’s critics. As she spoke several protesters were being processed for detention at Maricopa County jail.

“We have some critics–we saw a few of them outside–because a group recently wrote a large report criticizing ALEC,” said Lesko, referencing a report (“ALEC in Arizona: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests in the Halls of Arizona’s Legislature”) released two days earlier by People for the American Way Foundation and Common Cause. “And so, what better way is there to explain Arizona’s involvement in ALEC than by reading right from that very report? So, here we go:

” ‘Arizona has one of the highest concentrations of ALEC legislators of any state in the United States,’ ” Lesko began.

Uproarious applause.

” ‘At least 50 of the 90 legislators now serving in the legislature are ALEC members…’ “

Uproarious applause, with some shouts of woo! thrown in.

“Yay Arizona!” said Lesko. ” ‘Two-thirds of the Republican leadership in the Arizona House and Senate are ALEC members and the last three Arizona Senate presidents–including the current one–all served in ALEC roles.’ “

“Way to go Arizona!” shouted Lesko.

Uproarious applause.

Way to go Arizona! Olivia Ward, the reporter from the Toronto Star asked Scottsdale Westin manager Bruce Lange what was up with all the roughing up and ejecting of paid guests and he told her that Hodai was “persona non grata” according to ALEC because of his “history”. Of criticizing ALEC, obviously. Read the whole thing, including the extended version.

All of this brings to mind Arizona’s own Goldwater Institute (GI). GI wields a lot of influence in the news media and the in Legislature, and claims to stand for transparency. You would think GI would be all up in arms against the existence of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where corporate lobbyists and state legislators meet in secret to collaborate on proposed legislation, which generally involves allocation of revenues. But no, they appear to be pretty much okay with secret meetings and security cops roughing up reporters. After all, they’re a board level member of ALEC.

I got the following email from the City of Phoenix:

PHOENIX MANAGES TWO YEARS OF BUDGET DEFICITS; LEADERS PROJECT ZERO DEFICIT FOR 2012-13
After managing through a more than $330 million deficit over the last two years, Phoenix officials announced today that they are projecting no deficit for the upcoming fiscal year.
“Revenues are improving and the city is successfully managing its expenses,” said Mayor Greg Stanton. “Our city is not projecting a deficit for 2012-13, and I am cautiously optimistic about this budget outlook,” he said.
Over the past two years, the city overcame a $277 million deficit in fiscal year 2010-11 and a $59 million deficit in 2011-12.
“It is quite incredible what we have been able to accomplish over the last couple of years,” said City Manager David Cavazos. “By working with the Mayor and City Council, employees and the community, we have reduced the deficit to zero, while continuing to provide outstanding services to the public.”
Many factors have contributed to the city’s financial stability, including:
• Innovation and Efficiency savings of more than $40 million by streamlining the organization and reducing the workforce by 2,500 positions, resulting in the smallest number of employees per capita in 40 years (10.3 employees per 1,000 residents).
• Maintaining the city’s AAA bond rating despite the economic downturn, allowing the city to use its good credit to refinance debt, saving more than $44 million in General Fund debt service payments.
• Increasing the contingency, or rainy day fund, to the highest level in the city’s history, with nearly $36 million, or 3.4% of the city’s General Fund operating budget.
• Maintaining the property tax rate at $1.82, resulting in a savings for Phoenix residents of $121 million over three years.
• Consolidating departments and functions of the city, such as combining the Planning, Development Services and Historic Preservation departments into one department – the Planning and Development Department.
• Reducing twice as many managers as general staff positions (management positions have been reduced by 22%, all other employees reduced by 11%).
• Reducing management layers and increasing the span of control ratio from 1 manager for every 5.3 employees to 1 for every 8 employees.
“I commend city management for taking the council’s direction very seriously and developing creative ways to address the deficit. I look forward to continued discussion and even more savings and efficiencies identified and implemented during the coming year,” said Councilman Bill Gates, chairman of the City Council Finance, Efficiency and Innovation Subcommittee.
The City Council will receive a briefing on the budget at its meeting at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 24. After the meeting, the public process begins, with 15 public meetings conducted throughout the city in April and several more City Council meetings to discuss the budget prior to it being adopted.

So all the caterwauling and hyperventilating by the likes of Sal DiCiccio about (allegedly) overpaid city employees and (minuscule) raises paid for with food taxes and whatnot ignores the reality that city employees are doing a lot more work than they had to do before the budget cuts.

Per Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute (GI):

It’s not every day that the New York Times makes a compelling case against government giveaways. But a recent page-one article underscored that the Solyndra scandal was only the tip of the solar-subsidy iceberg. Huge companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, utilities including Exelon and NRG, and even Google are receiving government guarantees that ensure large profits with virtually no risk — except to the taxpayer.

Bolick cites a November 2011 NYT article, “A Gold Rush of Subsidies”, describing various federal, state, and local incentives and suggesting that caution is in order when handing out subsidies to wealthy companies where profit is all but insured and private risk is minimized. Fair enough, but Bolick sees a “compelling case” to eliminate all government incentives for solar where no such case was made in the article. Bolick ignores the pro-subsidy argument that writers Eric Lipton and Cifford Krauss included in their piece:

Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part because financing for renewable energy projects dried up during the recession. They also note that more traditional energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies of their own. For example, in the 2010 fiscal year, the oil and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.

“These programs just level the playing field for what oil and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 years,” said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. “Do you have to provide more policy support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.”

Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin, said renewable energy subsidies were a worthy investment. “It is a form of corporate welfare that is consistent with other social goals like job creation, clean air and boosting a domestic source of energy,” he said.

Fossil fuels got more than three times as much in subsidies as renewable energy got from 2002 to 2008. But the Goldwater Institute has never decried “giveaways” to Big Carbon. That might have to do with their donors and affiliations. If the Koch Brothers et al got big into solar or wind I expect GI would suddenly grow very silent on subsidies to those industries. (CORRECTION: Clint Bolick responded to this post and linked to a Republic op-ed where he did, in fact, call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Fair enough, Clint, but the ratio of GI statements opposing renewable subsidies to those opposing fossil fuel subsidies is very high.)

Not to mention that investments in clean energy are highly popular, whereas fossil fuel subsidies are definitely not. That’s an important consideration since energy consumers have far less leverage in that market than they do in consumer goods, such as shoes or computers. Unless you are very wealthy, you can’t just say, “I would prefer solar energy for my house, as opposed to coal or nuclear.” The only way most people can make their energy preferences known is through support for government investment. And they’ve spoken. They want the government to invest in renewable energy.

GI claims to oppose any favorable treatment to any industry via the tax code. It is true that they have gone after public pork for sports stadiums and the like, often at odds with Republican politicians and business leaders who are their usual allies. One of their favorite talking points is “government shouldn’t pick winners and losers”. Which sounds impressive except GI is wildly inconsistent about it. Hence their support for school vouchers and tuition tax credits, to the extent that they have joined lawsuits in favor of them. Those make winners out of private schools and parents sending their children to private schools using public dollars.

Which is interesting, because I’m not familiar with any poll showing widespread public support for diverting public education funds to private schools. A recent poll in Pennsylvania shows the opposite. Maybe GI could commission a poll in Arizona showing something different. I doubt they’ll succeed in that. Otherwise, I guess this all means the Goldwater Institute is consistent on one thing: They don’t care about what the people want. They care about what their donors want.

Per Campus Progress:

O’Keefe’s video shows individuals in polling stations throughout New Hampshire attempting to vote using the name of recently deceased persons in this week’s primary election. While his video shows smooth-sailing for every attempt, the reality is that the actions were so suspicious, they prompted a voting supervisor to call the police. Before O’Keefe released his edited version of the attempts, news outlets were already printing reports on this suspicious behavior.

As a result, O’Keefe has demonstrated that attempting to systematically rig an election via voter impersonation fraud is not feasible at the scale necessary without being caught. Instead, proposed Voter ID laws would only make it harder for legitimate citizens to be able to vote. One election law expert told TPM that O’Keefe’s next video should “show how easy it is to rob a bank with a plastic gun.” While such a move could be done a few times, there are already laws against it—just like laws against voter impersonation—and such a person would get caught pretty quickly.

Of course, someone attempting to rob a bank with a plastic gun to prove what they perceive as a legal weakness would likely run afoul of the law—and it looks like O’Keefe’s attempts at voter fraud are no different.

But none of that is going to deter our GOP state legislators from attempting to erect yet more barriers to voting based on apocryphal tales of hordes of undocumented Mexicans casting votes. Back in December State Senator and crazy person Sylvia Allen made the claim to a Tea Party gathering in Payson. And she had proof, y’all. Eyewitness accounts of those people flagrantly registering to vote! In front of Hispanic markets and everything!

Sen. Allen also decried various efforts to increase voter turnouts, with things like mail-in ballots and online voter registration. Allen said efforts to make it easier to register and vote could make it much easier for illegal immigrants to sway elections. “There are people voting who should not vote and there are lots of them. It’s bad enough that they’re here without permission.”

She cited as an example the successful effort to recall Senate President Russell Pearce who gained national attention for pushing strong state measures to curb illegal immigration. She said people in front of markets in Hispanic communities in Pearce’s district registered people to vote.

“There were people at those markets who hated Russell Pearce. They were registering people for a month, but no one checked that. One reason they want open borders is they want to merge us with Mexico.

“They’re being lied to and told they can vote. We need to work on this. What are we going to do if people can’t see it’s you voting (with an online ballot or mail-in ballot). We need to see what we can do to protect our vote.”

Ironic how it was not too long ago mail-in ballots and online registration heavily favored the “right” kind of voters but now they have to go because the “wrong” kind of voters have more access to computers.