--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Black Focus Inc." group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Black-Focus-Inc?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- Begin Message ---
Blog For Arizona
///////////////////////////////////////////
Links for 2008-09-03 [del.icio.us]
Posted: 04 Sep 2008 12:00 AM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/382958352/mbryan
8 More Shocking Revelations About Sarah Palin | Election 2008 | AlterNet
McCain's Voice Mail to Palin Leaked to Press (Listen) - 236 - The Room
///////////////////////////////////////////
Open Mic Night: So tell us how you really feel...
Posted: 03 Sep 2008 04:47 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/382697555/open-mic-night.html
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Former McCain campaign advisor Mike Murphy and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan
got caught by an open mic during a commercial break speaking honestly about how
they really feel about John McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin, just after
lying to Americans from the GOP talking points memo during their interview.
Finally some "straight talk" from a couple of hard core Republicans.
If you don't know, Mike Murphy is one of McCain's closest confidants, an
architect of his 2000 campaign, and someone who still gives him advice,
informally. Peggy Noonan is not only a former Reagan speechwriter but really a
high priestess of all things conservative and a Wall Street Journal columnist.
Here's a rough transcript of what each said.
Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state government work.
Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all
how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it's not
gonna work.
Noonan: It's over.
Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself
some good.
Todd: (inaudible about) Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
Noonan: I saw Kay this morning.
Todd: She's never looked comfortable about this.
Murphy: They're all bummed out.
Todd: I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me,
political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.
Todd: Yeah, but what's the narrative?
Murphy: I totally agree.
Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live
and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.
Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of
McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.
Todd: And as you called it gimmicky.
Murphy: Yes.
Hat tip to Mark Nicholas at Mark Nickolas' Blog
///////////////////////////////////////////
Republicans Attack Clean Elections from a New Angle
Posted: 03 Sep 2008 05:27 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/382432202/republicans-att.html
The "Goldwater" Institute is leading yet another futile crusade against
Arizona's popular and successful Clean Elections public finance system. This
time several "traditionally" funded candidates are pewling about their civil
rights being infringed upon by other candidates (their opponents) getting
public funds. The "Goldwater" Institute saw the recent Supreme Court decision
in Davis v. FEC and thought they saw an line of a attack on Arizona's Clean
Elections: they are deluded.
Other blogs and even the mainstream media, not to mention those between the two
extremes, have been reporting that the Goldwater suit has been successful and
that the matching funds portion of Clean Elections have been declared
unconstitutional. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. It just shows how little the mainstream
press and some bloggers understand the legal process. Judge Silver issued an
order
(PDF) which recognized a likelihood of success of the merits, but denied an
injunction of the Clean Elections system. The judge merely ruled that the
plaintiffs MIGHT succeed on the merits - not that they have. And the Judge is
wrong to boot and will undoubtedly reform her view of the law when there has
been a chance for the parties to argue the matter properly.
John McComish, Nancy McLain, Kevin Gibbons, Frank Antenori, Tony Bouie, and
Doug Sposito are the "traditional" pols who want an end to publicly financed
candidates receiving matching funds to keep them competitive with those who are
using private money. They do have a point. There are circumstances when the
matching fund provisions end up favoring the Clean candidates, especially when
there is more than one "traditionally" funded candidate in a race. And the
small charge-off for expenses that is deducted from matching funds probably is
unrealistically low. But these are details and are eminently within the power
of the Arizona legislature to fix, since those changes would conform to the
intent of the voters in passing Clean Elections. Instead of a fix, the
politico-plaintiff's lawsuit seeks to invalidate the entire section of Clean
Elections dealing with matching funds. They aren't reformers pointing out some
problems, they're vandals seeking to overturn the will of Arizona's voters
through the courts. Isn't that "judicial activism" in conservative parlance?
Most importantly, do these problems constitute a violation of the civil rights
of "traditional" candidates like the plaintiffs?
The answer is clearly "no". For those familiar with the case law let me lay out
the most fundamental case: Clean Elections does not impose any additional
limits on contributions, and certainly not asymmetric ones as in Davis;
matching funds do not reduce the speech rights of "traditionally" funded
candidates; and equalizing access to political speech is a valid governmental
goal that has never been rejected by the courts.
At first glance the Goldwater suit against the matching funds provisions of
Clean Elections has some merit. The Supreme Court has recently struck down some
provisions of BICRA that concerned self-financing candidates in Davis, just as
Clean Elections' matching funds provisions concern self- and "traditionally"
funded candidates. But the similarities and underlying constitutional issues
stop at the surface. A closer look at Supreme Court precedents and the
Goldwater's allegations against Clean Elections clearly show that unlike the
BICRA provisions, Clean Elections matching funds provisions do not impose any
limits on contributions, and do not reduce to the freedom of "traditionals" to
spend (i.e. speak in the unfortunate Buckley equivalence)
The central allegation of the suit is that equalizing funding to publicly
financed candidates, which is the purpose of the matching fund provisions, is
not a permissible governmental goal. The courts have never held this to be the
case, and given the courts' deference to management of the political system
generally ceded to the legislature, likely never will. It is true that so far
only avoiding corruption of the appearance of corruption is recognized by Davis
as a valid purpose for limiting contributions, but for the Arizona Supreme
Court or United States Supreme Court to strike down the matching fund
provisions of Clean Elections, the courts would have to blaze new doctrinal
ground and significantly limit the constitutional powers of legislatures. They
would have to declare the legislatures cannot act to equalize funding. That
would be a major doctrinal innovation and a major new limit on legislative
authority over the political process. It's just not going to happen in my view.
Rather, the point of this suit seems to be to raise funds for the Goldwater
Institute, and get conservative ink for the candidates, not to the win the case.
The most concrete example of harm to the plaintiffs raised by their brief is
merely speculative, and oddly psychological. They claim that the speech of
"traditional" candidates is chilled by the fear that by raising and spending
additional funds to promote their messages, they are giving their opponents
money. The problem is that speech is not really a finite good. More for me does
not mean less for you. If "traditional" candidates are so concerned about their
opponents' messages to voters that they are willing to stifle their own, they
can't have much confidence in the superiority of their views. Their money
having a multiplier effect on the speech available to all candidates shouldn't
affect the "traditional" candidate's speech at all. If it does, well... that
really their problem, not a Constitutional crisis. Get over yourselves,
plaintiffs. Your feelings are not constitutionally significant.
The system of matching funds clearly has some inequities that need to be
addressed. There are pernicious side-effects and loopholes that can be
exploited by the unscrupulous, but these are within the power of our
legislature to fix. The legislature could further the will of the voters and
provide a better Clean Elections system, but they don't want to do that: they
would prefer to work to destroy what Arizona's citizens have created. Instead
of incremental improvement, movement conservatives are set on exploiting
problems to try to undermine and destroy the system.
If the plaintiffs and the Goldwater Institute were serious about addressing the
problems of Clean Elections, I would be the first to support their efforts. But
the problems of Clean Elections do not mean it is unconstitutional, nor do they
undermine the benefits and resounding success of Arizona's Clean Elections
system. The greatest irony perhaps is that those who have benefited the most of
Clean Elections - movement conservatives - are the very people most adamantly
opposed to it. Clean Elections has significantly broadened the range of
political choices and the opportunities to be politically involved in Arizona
(often to my chagrin), and Arizonans are right to be proud of that system.
///////////////////////////////////////////
The real story behind John McCain choosing Sara Palin (Rated-R)
Posted: 03 Sep 2008 10:22 AM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/382412993/the-real-story.html
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Blog For Arizona."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=14094206&key=AjP_O2IRy9
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Blog For Arizona, c/o
FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661
This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.
--- End Message ---
