Well, maybe not so much for Barack Obama.
PR: Brewer Spokesman on Dean Martin
January 13, 2010 By 12 Comments
Statement by Brewer Campaign Spokesman Douglas Cole Regarding State Treasurer Dean Martin
“The campaign welcomes Dean Martin into the race.
“Over the next year, Arizona voters will learn that there is only one candidate who has a proven record of consistent conservative leadership: Governor Jan Brewer.
“As Governor Brewer said in her State of the State speech, she will release her fiscal blueprint for Arizona’s future on Friday.
“Within the next few days, Arizonans should expect five other substantive, realistic proposals from these potential gubernatorial candidates on how they plan to fix the state’s fiscal crisis. The clock is ticking.”
####
The most commonly abused terminology
January 13, 2010 By 18 Comments
By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer
I do not “blog,” although I post on some. I dislike the format because it allows for anonymity, which I don’t hide behind on my own posts. You want to run off at the pen, have the guts to tell me who you really are like I tell you.
Something we who do talk radio learn quickly is to dump the dumb caller as rapidly as possible. Allowing some yahoo to rant is an invitation to station change.
The late Marshall Fritz, well known in libertarian and educational freedom circles, once explained to me a principle from Little League coaching he called “Gresham’s Law of People.” Taken from the economic principle that bad money drives out good, he believed that loud-mouthed jerks drove away good folks and should be purged early and often for the health of any organization.
Newspaper editors have discretion when it comes to letters to the editor, which must be signed hopefully by a real person or even the person who actually wrote them. Some blogs are policed better than others. But the amount of illiterate drivel allowed to pass from left, right and ignorant center is still appalling.
I find many right-wing posters to be embarrassments, not for me personally or my philosophy, but for themselves. Hyper-active newbies always emerge whenever there is any kind of popular awakening, from opposing the Viet Nam War in the ’60s to opposing the Obama leftist agenda now.
California conservatives had a name for the worst of this category in the early ’60s – one-book Birchers. They read “I Saw Poland Betrayed.” Actually, they got up to page 23. It took three days. They found out there were communists and that was enough. They usually didn’t stay active long. This was pre-blog or they would’ve hung around longer.
There are left-wing equivalents, but they’re not my problem. You know who they are. Some of them on both sides are decent folks who just don’t know any better. My job is to help clean up my own. Best way to do that is to clarify the most commonly abused terminology.
• RINO, or Republican in Name Only. A simple measurement separates them from liberal Republicans. RINOS are Republicans like Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, who are not only liberals but don’t support other Republicans in general elections. Except for the Mecham recall in 1988, Sen. McCain hasn’t publicly dumped on other GOP nominees. He’s not a RINO and is too inconsistent to qualify as a liberal. I think CINO probably fits him best.
Conservatives and particularly conservative Republicans must learn these distinctions. Mayor Guliani is not a conservative, but supports the ticket. Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican out of convenience only and doesn’t. Real RINOS were the GOP officials who walked on Barry Goldwater in 1964. Those like Oregon’s Mark Hatfield who didn’t deserve consideration for playing by the rules.
• Conservative. There’s broad philosophical diversity in the movement which includes some libertarians. There are libertarians who don’t consider themselves conservatives, and conservatives who agree. Before you decide to yell sell-out or RINO, please note the lack of conservative consensus on immigration, fair tax, term limits, the Afghan war, and the foreign policy diversity you get from Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. Both qualifed as RINOs for having once run on another party’s ticket. Republicans holding party roles talking third party also qualify.
• Socialist. Has specific meanings and, like conservative, is highly diverse. Marxist? Positivist? Fabian? National? Fascist? Hint: It was not socialized medicine when the Roman Army sent early medics along with each Legion. Learn to focus.
There’s more. Hopefully there are some folks I have thoroughly offended. I can only hope those wishing to berate me will use their real names.
Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.
Hearing this Friday could end Clean Elections matching funds
January 13, 2010 By 7 Comments
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
A decade after Clean Elections began to stifle campaign speech in Arizona, free speech could soon be liberated. On January 15, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver will hold a hearing on Goldwater Institute’s challenge to the matching funds provisions of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act. The judge could temporarily or permanently block matching funds for government-subsidized candidates and finally allow traditionally-funded candidates and their supporters to speak freely in the 2010 election cycle.
Unfortunately, in a last ditch effort to preserve government subsidies for her 2010 campaign, Governor Jan Brewer has submitted an affidavit asking for matching funds to be saved, saying her candidacy is not viable without them.
But matching funds clearly violate the First Amendment. Under the Clean Election Act’s matching funds scheme, “participating” candidates, like Governor Brewer, receive nearly one dollar for every dollar privately raised or spent by a non-government subsidized (or traditionally-funded) candidate to promote his or her message.
Matching funds punish traditional candidates by causing their promotional efforts–their campaign speech–to fund the campaign speech of opposing candidates. Moreover, the threat of such punishment chills free speech by causing traditional candidates and their supporters to think twice before raising or spending money that might trigger matching funds to an opposing government-funded candidate.
Governor Jan Brewer had plenty of notice not to rely on such government subsidies during the 2010 election cycle. In two decisions issued during the 2008 election cycle, Judge Silver ruled that matching funds violated the First Amendment rights of traditionally-funded candidates and their supporters because individuals are entitled to be free from punishment for exercising their constitutional rights. Judge Silver also ruled that then-recent Supreme Court case Davis v. FEC required her to strike down any campaign finance regulation, like matching funds, that has the effect of chilling and deterring campaign speech. Judge Silver refrained from striking down matching funds at that time only because she did not want to interfere with an ongoing election.
This Friday, with the 2010 elections still many months away, we hope the court will protect the First Amendment and end the speech-stifling reign of Clean Elections in Arizona with an injunction on matching funds.
Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.
PR: John Munger on Dean Martin & Public Financing
January 13, 2010 By 10 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2010
JOHN MUNGER COMMENTS ON DEAN MARTIN’S DECISION TO ACCEPT PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING
(PHOENIX, AZ) January 13, 2009 – Republican Gubernatorial candidate John Munger released the following statement today:
Dean Martin’s first move as a potential future Governor is to throw the people of Arizona under his shiny campaign bus. His decision to use taxpayer funds to finance his campaign represents a complete flip- flop of his long-held position against accepting “clean elections” money.
It was Martin who once referred to public campaign financing as “welfare for politicians.” Yet now that he is officially a candidate, he has decided to go on the public dole himself. Further underscoring his hypocrisy, Martin continues to be a party to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s clean elections law.
My position on taxpayer-financed campaigns has remained consistent. What started as a well-intentioned law to ensure fair elections has instead turned into a convenient mechanism for professional politicians to continue running for office without any real public support.
The courts will decide the future of Arizona’s Clean Elections law. But Arizona voters will ultimately decide the moral issue of whether it is right for a candidate to go back on his word and use taxpayer money to fund an election campaign when our state is nearly bankrupt.
###
