Archives for September 2008

Kill the bailout, updated

Update: Michelle Malkin reports that the bailout bill has failed.

     The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on the Wall Street Bailout this morning. Please call and express your opinion. The main number for the house is (202) 224-3121. If you know the name of your congressman, you can use the numbers below to call their Washington D.C office directly. The bill should reach the senate later in the week so Monday is the day to focus on the House.

     If you want to read up on why this bailout is such a bad idea see this story by Michelle Malkin or watch the video below.

CD 1 – Rick Renzi
(202) 225-2315

CD 2 – Trent Franks
(202) 225-4576

CD 3 – John Shadegg
(202) 225-3361
Shadegg has called for Paulson to resign.

CD 4 – Ed Pastor
(202) 225-4065

CD 5 – Harry Mitchell
(202) 225-2190

CD 6 – Jeff Flake
(202) 225-2635
Thank Congressman Flake for opposing the bailout.

CD 7 – Raul Grijalva
(202) 225-2435

CD 8 – Gabrielle Giffords
(202) 225-2542

Protecting Their Freddie and Fannie

Huge credit to EspressoPundit for finding these clips on YouTube. Watch as Democrats try to cover for the management of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as early as 2004.

It would be irresponsible for Sonoran Alliance NOT to post this and get the word out about who is responsible for this economic disaster.

Let the politicians words speak for themselves.

Boehner sells out

House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has come out in support of the bailout. Conservative Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) is against the bailout. Congressman Shadegg is asking for input. We have not heard anything definitive from other members of the Arizona delegation.

The bailout is wildly unpopular with a broad cross section of the American public. The bailout could be a good opportunity for Republicans to distinguish themselves from Democrats, who will likely vote for the bill. It will be especially interesting to see if Giffords and Mitchell vote for the bill and if Bee and Schweikert are able to exploit the incumbents’ votes.

Uncivilized Tactics

Speaking of signs and downright mean and nasty tactics, this is what you get from people who don’t like to demonstrate civility in the political process.

This reminds me of an experiment that I heard from Dennis Prager on the radio. Here’s the hypothesis. If you park a car with liberal bumperstickers on it in a conservative neighborhood, chances are nothing will happen to it. But take the same car with conservative bumperstickers and put it in a liberal neighborhood, chance are it will get keyed and vandalized. The point is that liberals tend to act out of emotions and restrain any thought while conservatives act out of thought and restrain emotions.

Sonoran Alliance invites you to send any photos of the vandalized Prop 102 signs to us so we can keep show how wacked out these people are.

Dirty tricks in Cochise County

Sources in Sierra Vista tells us that 2 Democrats were cited for pulling down the signs of a Republican candidate and replacing them with anti 102 and 105 signs. Sierra Vista police found 7 signs inside the suspects’ vehicle and charged them with violating ARS 16-1019. Early information indicates that one of the anti 102 and 105 sign sponsors is the Professional Firefighters of Arizona. They are not doing very well with signage this year. Most of their candidates suffered defeat in the primary and now some of their sign installers are arrested for criminal violations. I wonder if they have considered just sticking to collective bargaining on behalf of their members instead of getting involved in politics.

Swearing Off Earmarks

Gila Courier has a brief post on those members of the Arizona Congressional delegation who have sworn off earmarks. That list is brought to us by the Club for Growth.

Currently, there are 41 members of Congress of which Arizona has four members. Here are those elected officials from Arizona who have sworn off earmarks and are listed on the Club for Growth website. 

  • Trent Franks
  • John Shadegg
  • Jeff Flake and,
  • John McCain

Not listed on the Club for Growth website are:

  • Jon Kyl
  • Rick Renzi

NOT listed and NOT committed to refusing earmarks are:

  • Harry Mitchell
  • Raul Grijalva and,
  • Gabrielle Giffords

Sonoran Alliance is also inquiring into the Congressional candidates. Currently the only candidate who is committed to swearing off earmarks is Congressional District 5 candidate, David Schweikert.

Proposition 101 Needs You!

Yes on 101

Here is a special event invitation sposored by our friends at the Federalist Society:

The Case for Medical Choice in Arizona: a panel discussion of Proposition 101
October 3, 2008, 9 -10 AM (registration begins at 8:30)
Speakers include:  Dr. Eve Shapiro, Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch, Dr. Eric Novack, and Dr. Jeffrey Singer
Location:  Tempe Mission Palms Hotel
Up to 1 hour Arizona CLE credit may be available for this event
$25 registration fee, includes breakfast
$5 additional fee for CLE credit and materials

Register online here; otherwise, RSVPs and information requests to Kasey Higgins ( or (480) 557-8300.

Attend Alice Lara’s fundraiser tonight? Why should you?

Listen to Alice Lara’s latest video discussing why she is running for Healthcare District Board #5, and if you like what she has to say, consider attending her fundraiser tonight from 4-6pm at Copperstate Consulting.

Legal Opinion: Husband to Remain

Sonoran Alliance received the following email today regarding the status of Maricopa County Chairman, Tom Husband.

I am in receipt of the legal opinion issued by our Legislative Council which addresses the issue of whether an elected county official’s term ends when they are no longer an elected precinct committeeman.  The conclusion they reach is that a party county office does not become vacant if an officer is not reelected as a precinct committeeman at the primary election and their term runs to the statutory organizational meeting in January.  The full opinion may be viewed at SeeingRedAZ but we’ve also reprinted the opinion below:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMO –  September 24, 2008

TO: Senator Thayer Verschoor

FROM: Kenneth C. Behringer, General Counsel

RE: County Party Officer Vacancy (R-48-129)

The current Maricopa County Republican Party chairman was not reelected as a precinct committeeman at the primary election held this month.

Does the office of chairman become immediately vacant or may the current chairman serve until a replacement is selected through the normal process?

The fact that the current chairman was not reelected does not mean that the office of chairman is immediately vacant.

The statutes are not explicit on what happens when a party county officer is not reelected as a precinct committeeman, but consideration of the specific county committee statutes and the general vacancy provisions indicate that the officer continues in the position until the county committee meeting at which the county officers are selected.

The county committee is comprised of all the precinct committeemen of a party in a county. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 16-821. The precinct committeemen are selected at the primary election. Id.The county committee may meet for the purpose of organizing no earlier than ten days after the last organizing meeting of the legislative districts in the counties. A.R.S. section 16-824. The district meetings must be no earlier than the second Saturday after the general election. A.R.S. section 16-823. Therefore, the statutes provide that precinct committeemen are elected in September, but county officers are not selected until the following December or January.

It appears that the term of the county officers goes from one organizational meeting to the following organizational meeting two years later. Officers must be selected at the organizational meeting, and there is no provision for selecting officers at a different meeting. Also, nothing in statute requires that a county officer’s term endsbefore the organizational meeting, whether if because an officer is not reelected as a precinct committeeman or for any other reason. Therefore, a party county officer doesnot lose the officer’s position before the county meeting, if the officer is not reelected as a precinct committeeman.

To conclude otherwise would mean that whenever a sitting county officer decided not to seek reelection as a precinct committeeman. a vacancy would be created in the office. This conclusion is contrary to the legislative policy imbued in the statutes. Under A.R.S. section 38-295, every officer must continue to discharge the duties of the office until a successor has qualified. While this does not extend the term for the officer, the provision is designed to prevent vacancies in any office. State v. Macias, 162 Ariz. 316 (App. 1989). The section evidences the legislature’s intent that public offices not be left open. An interpretation of the county officer statutes that would frequently create an automatic vacancy would go against this policy.

Had the legislature intended the county officer positions to become vacant if an officer were not reelected, it would have stated this removal requirement. The statutes clearly provide for vacancy of precinct committeeman positions on change in party or precinct in A.R.S. section 16-822, subsection D. However, as noted above, there is no vacancy requirement for a county officer if the officer is not reelected as a precinct committeeman.

This issue arose in part because there is an opinion letter circulating concerning a situation in Pima County regarding the appointment of a person to the state committee. The letter opined that the person was ineligible to serve on the committee. However, the letter is inapplicable to the current situation, because the person in Pima County had quit membership in the party for a short time. Therefore, the Pima situation fell within the vacancy requirement in A.R.S. section 16-822, subsection D.

A party county office does not become vacant if an officer is not reelected as aprecinct committeeman at the primary election.

Arpaio & Thomas Explain Not Seeking AZ Republic Editorial Endorsement

John McCain isn’t going to be getting the New York Times endorsement over Barack Obama. And we have a hunch that the Arizona Republic probably isn’t going to be touting our re-election campaigns either.

And that’s OK, because it would seriously confuse our supporters were we to seek the
Republic’s editorial endorsement, as candidates typically do.

This is why we took the unusual step of politely and respectfully declining the paper’s recent offer to solicit its support by appearing before its editorial board with our opponents.

After all, the Arizona Republic board has been one of the biggest voices against steps we have successfully taken to reduce Valley crime. Even the paper’s own lawyer has been opposing us outside of its own pages.

Crime reduction is not hyperbole on our part. It is a fact. Are we the only ones responsible for this improvement? Of course not. Police officers and deputy sheriffs on the front lines deserve most of the credit.

But we have taken new forceful steps that have made a difference. And unfortunately the Arizona Republic has systematically opposed many of them.

Most notably, they have opposed our joint efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. Many people once said local law enforcement officials couldn’t make a difference. We are proving otherwise with our hard-hitting, cutting-edge approach. Illegal immigration is down, even leading to significant self-deportation. Crime is down.

This is not a Republican, Independent or Democrat battle. This is everybody’s issue, except the Arizona Republic’s.

We have also been criticized by the paper for pursuing the death penalty, prosecuting illegal immigrants under the human-smuggling law and the employer-sanction law which cracks down on businesses knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

In opposing our candidacies the Republic will likely cite issues other than tough-on-crime policies and achievements.

They will likely talk about the Phoenix New Times illegally publishing Sheriff Arpaio’s home address and our respective office’s conduct after the fact.

They will talk about an approach toward judges they thought was too tough in the aftermath of some judges refusing to implement the voter-approved Proposition 100. This measure instructed the criminal justice system to deny bail to illegal immigrants committing heinous crimes.

They will talk about our opponents in glowing terms while ignoring their own research which would alert the public to embarrassing, disgusting or way too soft on crime information about our opponents.

Are we perfect public servants? We are not. We make mistakes like everyone else and learn from them.

But we continue to do many more good things right than wrong. That’s why crime has dropped and bad guys are spending more time and longer times behind bars. So while the Arizona Republic may not like our policies, the state’s leading police and border patrol organizations do because they have endorsed our candidacies, as have voters from all political parties.

So as you contemplate the Republic’s commentary consider their editorial pages
have swung so far to the left that they will actually suggest changing out the County Sheriff and County Attorney for opponents favored by the attorneys of Valley criminals and open border activists, and at a time when we are starting to win more of the war on crime. Then again, the
New York Times didn’t endorse Mayor Giuliani despite his success cleaning up New York City either. The New York Times was out of touch. The Arizona Republic editorial board is out of touch.