You are here: Home / Archives for Emil Franzi

My New Year’s List of Folks Who Never Would Be Missed

January 5, 2012 By 10 Comments

By Emil Franzi

  • All the Tea Party constitutionalists who opined on talk radio that Gingrich and Cain would have made a great GOP ticket missing the constitutional provision that the President and Vice President must come from different states.
  • Self-righteous and indignant Arizona Democrats who defend Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Colleen Mathis as a persecuted unpaid volunteer dedicated to justice and fairness. A cursory glance at her actions clearly indicates she was a Democrat shill wired from day one who stacked the deck and still takes text messages her Democrat husband and others send from the back of the meetings. Any competent political reporter not in the bag for the Dems would’ve noticed and reported that by now.
  • Lazy and inept Arizona Republicans who blithely ignored the giant sandbag that Dems had constructed for them on the supposedly “independent” commission and believed the game was on the level.
  • A spineless Governor who once waffled and froze over signing SB1070 finally succumbing to the obvious and acquiring an unearned reputation for courage much like Mrs. Mathis. Neither are exactly Joan of Arc. Mrs. Dithers was finally convinced to “do something” about the hijacked IRC and bounced Mathis. Cluelessness followed capped by the single page Hail Mary letter she threw the Supreme Court and her hasty retreat to the showers after the interception.
  • Libertarians and Paulistas who attempt to redefine a movement they were never part of by trashing conservatives for being conservatives and not libertarians.
  • Conservatives and Tea Party types who try to read other conservatives out of the movement for deviations from them. Conservatism has always been a big tent and included big government types. Somebody had to write the Alien and Sedition Laws. Want Hamilton and Adams airbrushed out of the portraits of the Founders? Edit Hamilton’s portions out of THE FEDERALIST?
  • Romney supporters who keep telling me “he’s the inevitable GOP nominee.” Not being Buddhist, Marxist or Calvinist, I never bought anything being inevitable and his supporters do him no favor by claiming it.
  • Romney detractors who claim he’s too liberal and then cite Reagan as a standard. Governor Reagan was to the left of this GOP field including Huntsman.
  • Liberals who whine about educational funding and claim concern for children when their actual concern is the payrolls of their political and union allies some of whom on occasion are actually involved with a schoolchild. When these frauds tell you we need more money “for the childen” note that usually means paying another adult.
  • Conservatives who support corporate welfare whenever it’s for something they slobber over like stadium skyboxes.
  • Occupy folks who have yet to compute that the money they’ll never be able to pay off for that Art History degree wasn’t just a scam by the banks. They ignore the bloated university staffs who collected it and the pols who enabled them by changing the bankruptcy laws.
  • Finally the hypocrisy and arrogant narcissism of Congressman Paul who sanctimoniously claims high integrity, but cops out on the repulsive racist and other bilge printed under his name and from which he profited, by claiming it was done by “ghost writers” and that “he never read it”. That makes him not only totally irresponsible and easily manipulated, but worse a fraud who sees nothing wrong in falsely claiming the thoughts of others as his own. Paul also needs to explain why he “stands on principle” in refusing to support any of the other GOP candidates for President while as a House member he has consistently supported the choice of the GOP caucus for Speaker including Newt Gingrich. Perhaps for the massive earmarks he brings to his Texas district?
Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Conservatives, Guest Opinion, Liberals

AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head siuth

June 3, 2011 By 6 Comments

AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head south
Posted: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:00 am
AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head south By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer Explorer News | 0 comments
The recent outbursts – the proponents’ behavior was too thuggish to call it a legitimate debate – over Ethnic Studies at TUSD concerned making the program elective. The program as taught should be completely scrapped for the fraud it is.
Society gets no benefit from teaching blatant falsehoods. Claims that lands ceded by Mexico to the United States after the War of 1846 were the home of an advanced Aztec culture called Aztlan that was eliminated by invading Europeans are simply absurd.
Native tribes living here had little contact with the Aztecs, a culture engaged in the same group psychosis and internal genocide as Pol Pot’s Cambodia. The Aztecs were conquered by a handful of Spaniards because many other tribes Aztecs oppressed and murdered joined the invaders. Life for the average Native American of this continent before Columbus was best illustrated in “Apocalypto.” Try Netflix for a real elective.
Until Mexican Independence in 1821, the area may have been colored Spanish on European maps but they were barely ruling anything. Scattered settlements and missions existed at the sufferance of the mostly nomadic warrior tribes who were really in charge and constantly fought with each other.
Mexican successors to the Spaniards also fought each other and neglected their northern provinces, often not even arming what few troops they posted. By the 1840s, the real rulers of “Aztlan” were folks like the Comanche, who sent giant raiding parties within 200 miles of Mexico City and brought parrots back to Texas. Apaches and other warrior tribes controlled the rest. Forget that peaceful farmers bilge. It insults great warrior cultures that were the real rulers of that mythical realm.
By the time President Polk led the American Empire against the one Santa Ana was establishing., there were few Mexicans remaining in northern Mexico. Those surviving lived in the accumulations of hovels that were Tucson and other small settlements, finally under the protection of a country that at least bothered to send an army.
While there was discrimination by some Europeans against Mexicans, the overwhelming majority of both hadn’t arrived yet. The hostility between native tribes and Mexicans was even greater than that between gringos and either of them. To teach otherwise is to blatantly distort the truth.
So is teaching that Euro-Americans oppress Mexican-Americans. Media covered one female student claiming she never knew she was oppressed until she was taught it in her Ethnic Studies class. Really?
The Alabama slave working the fields all day knew he was oppressed. So did the Jewish family hiding in an attic from the Nazis in occupied Holland, the Chinese woman raped by occupying Japanese troops, and the Cambodian school teacher hunted down to be part of a mass execution by Pol Pot’s lunatic regime. Closer to home, so did the young Aztec man having his heart cut out by a batch of insane priests from a vicious society of which so many are genuinely ignorant and wish to honor. Nobody had to tell any of them they were being oppressed.
If you don’t know you are being oppressed, you are probably aren’t. Here are some more hints.
If you can run off at the mouth about it and nobody busts you, you probably aren’t oppressed. If you can freely and publicly meet with others who share your perspectives and particularly if those who tell you of oppression are on the payroll of the very society they claim is doing the oppressing and are funded by taxes raised from the supposed oppressors, there’s a real good chance you aren’t oppressed.
If you abuse others and keep them from speaking, threaten folks and disturb public meetings that give you your own say, you just moved into being the oppressor yourself. That’s what you and the rest of those at TUSD really need to learn about.
Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturday from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.
© 2011 The Explorer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

BAJA HA HA

March 3, 2011 By 4 Comments

Baja Arizona supporters are clueless Tucson narcissists

The recent proposal by some Tucson Democrats to secede from the rest of the state once again shows us how clueless most of them are.

Attempts to make a state called Baja Arizona have been around a long time; they have about as much real viability as running the Mexican Reconquista proposed in certain TUSD classes the other way and grabbing Rocky Point. Two things are different this time. First is the attention given it by many who whomp the legislature for wasting time on trivial issues. The second is the re-definition of “Baja Arizona.”

Current proponents now define it as only Pima County. The traditional definition is those current counties included all or in part in the Gadsden Purchase. Beyond Pima, that’s Yuma, La Paz, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham and Greenlee. That would include close to two million people and with some stray pieces of Maricopa currently is represented by most of two Congressional districts with parts of two others.

On the surface this would make another blue state as the two larger Congressional districts both just elected Democrats, although by close margins, but add the other pieces and you’d tip at least one Republican.

More relevant are the state legislative districts. There are about nine of them, and for a long time they were dominated by Democrats. That domination ended in 2010. Six of the nine senators are Republican as are 11 of the 18 House members. That approximates the state totals of 21-9 and 40-20. The real Baja Arizona would be another GOP state.

And unlike the mushmouths and RINOs the southern GOP used to send to Phoenix, these Republicans are real conservatives generally allied with their northern brethren.

Tucson Democrats may claim they wish to escape from Phoenix “crazies” but what they really want to get away from is Saddlebrooke, Safford and Sierra Vista. I suspect that some Democrat supporting this may have run the numbers.

They want to put the secession option on the ballot in Pima County. OK, but first let’s allow the voters all the real options. One of those would be joining the rest of Southern Arizona in a genuine Baja state. Another would be opting out of a Tucsoncentric operation. Why should Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita and unincorporated Pima move to a new domination by Tucson crazies?

Democrats have a major problem. They are unable to deal with reality. They (and too many others) falsely assumed that the 2008 election was the new dawn. They lost big in 2010 and are still in denial. From Wisconsin to Arizona they are generally unable to accept it and are trying to change or even ignore the rules.

Whenever I see some batch of losers trying to “reform the process” by changing the rules (exemplified by the Morrison Institute attempts to destroy real representative government in Arizona because they don’t like our current representatives), I think back to all of those friendly little dealer’s choice poker games. There was often some twerp who’d been losing all night who decided the only shot he had was calling the bizarre like No Peaky and Anaconda because he lost his butt at the real ones like draw and stud.

Politics is a lot like poker. There’s always another hand sitting right on top of the deck and there are no “safe” constituencies long term or else we’d still have a few Whigs in office somewhere. The attitude Democrats have towards losing is petty and will hardly win back most of what they already lost with bad candidates and worse ideas. There only real hope is Republican incompetence, something that’s preserved a lot of lucky Democrats who shouldn’t let it go to their head.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.

Filed Under: County Government, Culture, Political Parties

A Conservative Response to January 8, 2011

February 4, 2011 By 1 Comment

Conservative reflections on January 8th
Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

By Emil Franzi

Special to The Explorer – Explorer News

Jan. 8th will never be the same again in Southern Arizona. While the tragedy at Safeway had a national impact, it will always have a special place in the hearts and souls of we who live here.

Responses local and national have ranged from noble and intelligent to repulsive and confused, representing the best and worst in human nature. The best were well reported. Many of the worst have been allowed to slide.

Narcissism hit bottom with the memorial service turned tacky pep rally. Commemorative T-shirts? An incoherent invocation from a pseudo-Shaman? Boo the governor? Cheer the sheriff? I expected beer vendors next. While President Obama and the other officials handled it well, I suspect many family members of victims quietly felt the same.

Some believe our atmosphere has been so fouled by militant political speech, specifically from the right, that even if this killer never heard any, some process of osmosis motivated his deranged brain. That, and the easy availability of firearms, has been the focus from much of the left, chanted with standard hoary hyperboles. As when similar tragedies occurred, some simply ignored facts. Others basely pimp partisan advantage.

Americans are strongly divided over many issues. Periods when they weren’t, even briefly, are rare. Maybe the day after Pearl Harbor. There are few periods in our history when we weren’t vitriolic and “uncivil” starting with the Declaration of Independence. It’s the American way, and the way of a free society. Watch Question Time in the Brit or Australian Parliaments, or check the Knesset. The only thing different is conservative rhetoric just won a big victory over leftist rhetoric. What the left really doesn’t like is this time theirs didn’t work.

There were exceptions. Those who condemn the hardball campaign against U.S. Rep. Giffords ignore that she and her support groups were slightly better at it.

FBI stats for the past 50 years tell us that gun ownership increased while violent crime went down. That may or may not be cause and effect but it negates gun proliferation as a cause argument. This nutter had a stack of drug arrests. Had someone charged him with a felony or ordered a mental evaluation referral, he would’ve been barred from legal purchase. He could still have easily acquired an illegal weapon the same way he acquired his illegal dope – illegally.

More important is where, with no means of support and living with his parents, he got $500 to buy a Glock from anybody. Those blaming his actions on abstract forces should focus on the parents who ignored his many busts, his expulsion from college, and the skull shrine in their backyard. Don’t feel sorry for them; they were the real enablers, not Sarah Palin.

Hoplophobia is again rampant. The same pathetic and baseless fears that disarmed Wilbur Wildcat and stopped the traditional contest for the Kit Carson Rifle between the UA and UNM is back. Dillinger Days is modified to not somehow stimulate the addled. Otherwise rational City Council members accommodate irrational neighbors who fear the sale of ammunition at the new WalMart. All avoid the real problem, the evil sicko who commits the crime and those who directly aid him including they who act as his PR staff.

Sadly, this tragedy will repeat. There will be copycats. Massive publicity given this perp guarantees it. We already know the response if the next incident revolves around a Democratic official. But what if a Republican, or an entertainment or business figure, or just a group of innocent people is targeted? Who or what will be blamed besides the killer?

Leftist hate speech? Violent movies? Video games? Target Stores? Bullet Trains? Tombstone re-enactments?

The picture of our killer on the cover of Time magazine all but guarantees a sequel. And please note, I never used the creep’s name.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.

Filed Under: Crime and Punishment, Culture, Freedom of Speech

A PRECEDENT IS NOT A PRINCIPLE

November 25, 2010 By 4 Comments

A precedent is not a principle

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer
Published:
November-24-2010 12:10am
The massive gains made nationally by Republicans in 2010 differed from those in 1994 in several ways.

In 2010, the Democrats saw it coming and contained losses as well as they could. That the losses were greater at almost all levels does not mean that Democrats didn’t do an excellent job of keeping those losses from being much bigger.

The biggest area for GOP gains was in the heartland, starting in Pennsylvania and ending around the Mississippi, with sporadic victories scattered from there. The GOP had smaller gains in both the Northeast and Far West. The South and other parts of the West were already heavily GOP, and gains were smaller by comparison.

A major difference over the last 16 years was the large increase in at-home voting. It is no longer necessary to haul marginal voters to the polls. Get an early ballot request, or, better, put them on a permanent list and then drop by to make sure the ballot gets filled out and delivered. That clearly requires a large work force of volunteers or paid workers. Democrats were effective in matching increased Republican enthusiasm with a bigger street force, and tighter voter identification, particularly in the West, where at-home voting is in vogue.

Besides accruing to those with the most money and auxiliaries (public employee unions come to mind), the large increase in at-home voting is responsible for the agonizingly slow counts while all the ballots that came in on Election Day are run through the complex process currently mandated.

In most wave elections, the close ones go to the side of the wave. That did not happen in 2010, proving once more that a precedent is not a principle.

2010 was not, as some Democrat pundits still believe, an “anti-incumbent” election. It was clearly anti-Democrat, proving that too many Democrat-leaning pundits are in denial.

It also wasn’t a pro-Republican election. Americans have rejected much of the leftist agenda. They are now giving the GOP a chance to present an alternative. The next election will be won not only over the conflicting substance of those agendas, but in their presentation. As President Obama has yet to learn, both are required.

Republicans and conservatives gained much for future recruitment and should be able to field a higher quality of candidate in 2012. Many voters choose beyond party and ideology. Quality Tea Party candidates like Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky won big, flakes like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware didn’t.

The GOP may get up off the couch now in places it hasn’t, like Delaware, where the party was so moribund that O’Donnell was actually their nominee in the last two Senate elections. Delaware is also the only state to lose an incumbent Republican state senator in 2010.

District 26 has finally demonstrably proven that you don’t need to be a moderate Republican to win. For years, northern Pima County with few exceptions sent a variety of centrists and liberals north based on the eroding myth that it was all that could be elected. The myth even spread to neighboring District 25.

District 26 just returned conservative Sen. Al Melvin by over 6,000 votes, up from 2,000 last time. On the House side, Conservative Terri Proud lead the ticket and not only knocked off Democrat Nancy Young Wright, but ran 2,000 votes ahead of sometimes conservative incumbent Republican Vic Williams. In District 25, all three seats were taken by conservatives by even greater margins.

This happened for three reasons. More conservatives moved in, many existing Republicans and most independents moved to the right, and Democrats moved to the left.

More later.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:

EXPLORER -EF endorses

October 30, 2010 By 6 Comments

GOP has some flakes, but they pale next to Dems

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer
Published:
October-27-2010

Vote a straight Republican ticket. The GOP has some flakes, and there are a few decent folks running against them. That pales next to the combination of incoherence, sleaze and statism now dominating the Democrats who deserve not only defeat but humiliation.

The Libertarian Party, which I once led to ballot status in Arizona, has degenerated from a coalition of Objectivists, Heinleinians, real conservatives and genuine liberals to a surly pack of quasi-leftists. They’ve morphed to clueless about the heritage of the movement they represent and often resemble a Code Pink rally. Glenn Beck was responsible for more sales of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” in one day than there are current LP members who have heard of it, let alone read it.

If the GOP is successful, a certainty in Arizona and other states, they’ll be on strict probation pending behavior modification for past sins. Get ready for 2012. Now the ballot props.

106 – Yes. The “no” argument says shut up and await judicial decisions, a typical liberal elitist argument avoiding the real substance. If you believe it’s wrong for the government to force you to purchase private health insurance, vote yes. If enough people do that in enough places, Obamacare might actually get repealed by Congress. Hearing the voters is part of the process, something liberals are apparently scared to death of.

107 – Yes. Minorities have been impeded, and worse further isolated, by so-called affirmative action programs. Promoters of them claim moral high ground based on noble intent. Reality and ultimate results contradict them. Arguments claiming job losses border on incoherency.

109 – Yes. The argument that it’s a power grab because it transfers decision making from an unelected bureaucracy to representatives we elect is a ludicrous attempt to mask the real opposition which simply doesn’t want hunting to be installed as a constitutional right.

110 — Yes. Selling public lands near military bases has little opposition.

111 —No. If you want a LtGuv, add one. Voters dumped that idea so proponents now want to call the Secretary of State something else. Making that office a satellite of the governor by having them run as a ticket simply further reduces voter choices.

112 — Yes. Petition deadline extension has no real opposition.

113 —Yes. Once again the “shut up and wait for the judge” argument masks the real one. Today’s unions are more interested in the agenda of the leftist coalition they are part of than taking care of their members. Unions fought hard to establish a secret ballot to stop worker intimidation. Today’s union leaders are such losers they want secret ballots eliminated so they can do the intimidating.

203 — No. You might get me if proponents would argue based on the freedom of the individual instead of medical voodoo and the phony belief that legal pot would somehow hurt the drug cartels handling it. Did ending Prohibition really slow down the Mob?

301 and 302 — Yes. If for no other reason that the sick arguments that claim allowing voters to reconsider anything they once supported somehow injures them. 30l allows the money for land purchases to be spent elsewhere while 302 does the same for early childhood education.

I support the acquisition of open space and reluctantly will vote yes on 301. I am happy to vote yes on 302 and repeal the allocation of funds to another program that transfers responsibility for raising kids from parents to the state.

Should either or both fail, the new legislature should come back in 2012 or earlier via special election with a sunset measure that gives all ballot props allocating funds an automatic reconsideration date.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m., KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

May will tell many political tales

April 7, 2010 By 2 Comments

American politics will have jelled for at least the November election in the next six or so weeks. Primaries occur in diverse states like Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky. Obamacare is in its first stage of getting early reactions to reality, not hype. National polling data will either solidify around current trends favoring GOP candidates or move back to the Democrats. Many states and localities, including Arizona, will vote on tax and other measures.

The Real Clear Politics polling average currently shows the GOP slightly ahead in generic voting, and President Obama below 50 percent approval. If that holds until May, Democrats are due for a bath in November.

Democrat pundits like Bob Beckel over on Fox are telling us “now that the President has time to explain it,” things will change. Right, Bob, like what else has he done? But like Juan Williams, Bob’s a class act and fakes that righteous indignation beautifully. I think Juan really believes it. Fox has great numbers, not just from conservatives. Liberals get better representation there than the screaming losers elsewhere on cable.

The problem for Democrats with the GOP being slightly up or even is in the voter distribution. Partly geographic and partly through the “separate but equal” nature of concentrated big city minority districts, Dems get heavy districts that don’t have real general elections thanks to federal mandate, making others more competitive.

Locally, we will know if Arizonans and others are ready to raise their taxes. The governments themselves will continue to reduce the most popular and useful services and avoid laying off employees as their highest priority to encourage voter cooperation. They may find that also encourages voter rebellion.

A poll released by Moore and Associates of Portland, Ore., for proponents says 59 percent of Arizonans favor a 1-cent increase in the state sales tax. I was once told by an able pollster that any revenue proposal with serious opposition starting below 60 percent is in trouble. Ironically, that pollster was from the Moore firm. I’m sure proponents were told that, too, so a happy face is not yet in order for them. A bipartisan coalition including business and labor will now spend a fortune on a media blitz which may ultimately be counter-productive.

The four-way GOP gubernatorial primary will become clearer. The tax hike Gov. Brewer supports is opposed by all three of her opponents. Conventional wisdom maintains multiple opponents aid an incumbent. Conventional wisdom is based on precedent, not principle. Incumbents like Oro Valley Mayor Paul Loomis are coming in third. Recent polling has two of Brewer’s opponents, State Treasurer Dean Martin and Prescott businessman Buz Mills, even with her, with Tucson attorney John Munger gaining. If the tax goes down, any one of them – maybe all of them – could beat her.

The GOP U.S. Senate primary between John McCain and J.D. Hayworth may also clarify, with Jim Deakin illustrating if he can be a factor. In CD8, the four-way Republican contest would use that shaky conventional wisdom to favor former State Sen. Jonathan Paton, followed by businessman Jesse Kelly, USAFR pilot Brian Miller and Cochise County’s Andy Goss. Goss has raised little money but is the most entertaining and gets Mr. Congeniality for futures. Kelly has raised enough money and built a sufficient volunteer force to be in the game, while Miller cannot be counted out.

Arizona Democrats have no major primaries much of anywhere. Pima Dem Chair Jeff Rogers says that’s because they are so well-disciplined. I guess the Chicago way has filtered down. That’s a long way from Will Rogers quip about being a Democrat means belonging to no organized political party.

Some advice from General George Patton. When everybody’s thinking alike, nobody’s thinking.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturday 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Political Parties

Voting was never a root canal

March 15, 2010 By 11 Comments

Emil FranziOnce again Oro Valley is conducting a mail-in election. And once again I will tell you why the concept is fundamentally wrong.

It makes voting easier? Check Iraq or Afghanistan or lots of other places trying to build democratic regimes where they still shoot at you for making the attempt. Voting was pretty damn easy here for quite a while.

My liberal Democrat radio co-host Tom Danehy, who shares my opinion on this subject, reminds us of a news clip from a Philippine election in which an official with a ballot box is being chased by a group of thugs. Not shown is the part where they succeeded and killed him. I witnessed a few years back huge lines in Rocky Point when they were holding something unusual in Mexico – a real election. People wanted to be part of it.

We had it pretty soft. Having to actually leave home and go to a safe polling place isn’t exactly a root canal.

Voting by mail does make it easier – for the election bureaucracy. They prefer to use the money involved to hire a few more permanent employees rather than go through the hassle (for them) of using Election Day temps.

The costs involved are clearly increased in some areas (postage) and decreased in others (poll workers), but that should never be a deciding factor. Ahead of even cops, courts and armies, choosing who’s in charge is the first and most primary duty of government.

At-home voting destroys the secret ballot. Why do you think we have those little booths and curtains? So husbands can’t muscle wives or wives husbands. Mailing out ballots is an invitation to cajole by anyone from the family patriarch and union boss to your mama.

It’s also quite obviously a fraud magnet. Why the same Republicans who are convinced thousands of illegal aliens are voting at the polls are ignoring a system that eliminates their having to go there to do it is beyond me. I recognize that most voting systems are legit, but it doesn’t take much dog barf to ruin an otherwise great burger.

While supposedly being in the best interest of individual voters, the at home ballot can screw them in two ways by returning it too early or returning it too late.

Return it too early and you may learn something that would’ve changed your mind about a candidate or an issue. The elimination of late information was sold as a virtue by advocates of early voting because it would eliminate last-minute smears. It also eliminates last-minute facts. Which is why many folks hold onto their ballot until the last minute.

Only return it too late and it doesn’t count. One stat I have never seen election officials produce is how many ballots get tossed every time for late delivery.

But my greatest complaint is that the entire concept (beyond taking care of the ballots of those physically unable to get to a polling place including those who are out of town) is totally demeaning to the election process.

What advocates are really saying is “we recognize this voting thing is really not important to you. You’re right — it’s no big deal. We want to make it so easy it won’t inconvenience you at all.” Turnout is not increased by telling people voting is not worth much effort.

Election days used to be local and national events. They were part of that Norman Rockwell kind of glue that helped hold the country and its culture together. To eliminate them is to eliminate one more part of what made America a great nation.

Filed Under: City Government, Demographics, Voter Registration, Voters Guide

There is no viable third way

January 28, 2010 By 3 Comments

Emil FranziMany conservatives and libertarians were so turned off by recent sins of the GOP leadership in both the Bush administration and the Congressional leadership that they either became or stayed independent voters. A vocal handful drifted off to other parties like Libertarian or Constitution, but the meager voter returns those options garnered recently should illustrate their current lack of general appeal. I sympathize with them and was once an advocate of that approach.

In 1976, the GOP was far more liberal than now. Those thinking John McCain too far to the left should study Richard Nixon. Wage-price controls defines what a real RINO is. Those claiming McCain’s loss hurt the Republican Party should note how injured it was by Nixon’s victory.

After the 1974 election, Republicans were reduced to 37 Senators and 144 House members. States with a GOP governor and state legislature consisted of Kansas. Worse, there was little fight left on the right. Former Governor Reagan made his second try for the presidency against Gerald Ford, but the attitude of too many conservatives was best expressed by the late syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick, who told us that Gerald Ford was the most conservative president we’d ever get. Too many suffered from political post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ford won the nomination. I’d had it with squishies. I switched registration to Libertarian and had my name on a ballot for the first (and last) time as an elector pledged to Roger McBride. I stubbornly remained with the LP after it was obvious that third parties no longer work.

Political parties are coalitions. In coalitions you support some policies that you care little about to secure those you do. The LP has been with us for 39 years, had some marginal success at the local level, once broke a million votes for President with Ed Clark in 1980 and has made the word “libertarian” generally understood. I always shared its core belief in Austrian economics and the part of that sojourn I most treasure is friendship with its great exponent, the late Murray Rothbard, and others. But there are too many deal-breaker issues for me.

Libertarian blogs are filled with nut cases from 9-11 truthers to those so anti-cop they claim we’re a police state. They should try living in a real one or chatting with older black folks who grew up in parts of the South or Eastern big cities. They don’t believe America had a foreign threat since George III. Many favor real open borders. Not a coalition I, nor most people, care to be part of.

I voted for Ron Paul for President – in 1988. If I had it to do over, I wouldn’t. But that he now survives as a voice for most libertarian views as a member of the GOP should make the point. His 2008 campaign and his bully pulpit are far more useful to his cause than his prior LP effort.

The differences between the two major parties have never been this clear. Real liberal Republicans and genuine conservative Democrats are far more endangered than polar bears. Those who possess reasonably coherent political ideologies that lean one way or the other can best advance their agenda by being part of one or the other. There is no viable third way, either in the center or outside it. Both parties have open nominating processes. That differs from earlier times when third parties were sometimes viable options.

Boss Tweed once said he didn’t care who did the votin’ long as he did the nominatin’. You get to do the nominating now. Quit whining and go help take over your local party.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Political Parties

Kyl does well in a job he doesn’t need

January 20, 2010 By 5 Comments

Emil FranziSitting in Sen. Jon Kyl’s office waiting for my scheduled interview, I was struck at just how hard any senator is expected to work and how much time is spent doing it by those who, as most do, take their job seriously.

His rather typical day back home was tightly scheduled in 15-minute segments, ranging from media and constituent interviews to a ceremony awarding a Bronze Star to a deceased WW2 vet’s son. He was kept busy from an early morning radio interview to a 6 p.m. appearance with 800 Tea Party folks in Oro Valley.

Members of Congress receive $174,000 in salary and the same benefit package as other federal employees, phony e-mail blasts to the contrary notwithstanding. Prior to his first election to the U.S. House in 1986, Jon Kyl was one of the top attorneys in Arizona. He doesn’t need the job. Regardless of party, those who don’t tend to give you better government.

We all want members of Congress to “read the bills.” Someone who would read every word himself if possible, trust me, is Jon Kyl. He can’t, there’s simply too many. Kyl handles it by breaking bills into portions and sharing them with his staff, and also by sharing information with trusted colleagues. He specifically mentioned one of my favorites, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Kyl also is number two in the GOP Senate hierarchy, which further stretches his time commitment. I asked him to assess the 2010 Senate elections, and he named eight states where he felt the GOP had good to excellent chances of pick-ups along with holding current seats. He doesn’t bluster, that’s an honest assessment.

We went through the major issues, with health care at the top of the pile. Kyl observed that the process has been as damaging to the Democrat product as the product itself and noted that we have only seen the obvious pay-offs and have no idea what other commitments were traded for senators’ votes. He believes it’s not over yet, and that opponents should keep the heat up, particularly Arizonans who have three Democrat House members in marginal seats – Giffords, Kirkpatrick and Mitchell – who voted for it.

Jobs creation was next on Kyl’s list. He believes you don’t fight unemployment with more stimulus money to local governments, but by giving private industry including small business the stable economic environment necessary for them to expand and create jobs.

Jon KylKyl supports military efforts in Afghanistan and believes President Obama acted correctly if too slowly. Space prohibits listing the many other areas of this administration’s foreign policy he differs with.

Illegal immigration was on the minds of many at the Tea Party meeting. Kyl firmly believes that before any revision in policy occurs, securing the border by finishing the fence and hiring the as-promised additional Border Patrol officers is mandatory. He met with Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano prior to her confirmation to stress this, obviously without avail.

Watching Kyl in front of a Tea Party was edifying. How did an establishment GOP lawyer/senator do with all those supposed right-wing crazies? OV types aren’t atypical. Kyl treated them with respect, and they responded in kind.

He randomly selected questioners on any subject, unlike some colleagues who wanted them in writing and pre-screened them or, worse, were too craven to show up at all. His answers were succinct, responses were direct and occasionally not what the questioner wanted to hear. Kyl doesn’t pander, something the audience would have caught anyway.

TIME magazine rated both he and John McCain among the 10 most effective members of the United States Senate. It’s easy to understand why.

Filed Under: Government

The most commonly abused terminology

January 13, 2010 By 18 Comments

Emil FranziBy 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.

Filed Under: Blogs, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Political Science

Term limits, and term lengths

January 6, 2010 By 1 Comment

There’s a film clip circulating on the Internet featuring what is obviously a legislative body in session.

A member is making a speech from the podium while other members can be seen in various frivolous poses, including playing video games on their desktops. It is being used to encourage term limits for Congress.

Only the legislative body pictured is the California Assembly, which has been term-limited for 20 years. It doesn’t work.

One of the great by-products of federalism is the ability it gives states to find out how well certain things will work – or not. States like Arizona having term limits aren’t governed any better than those that don’t.

One problem with term limit proponents is their belief that the Founding Fathers wanted everybody to just serve for a bit and go home. I devoted an entire column recently to listing all the major figures in our nation’s birth, and noting how from Sam Adams to James Monroe they all spent considerable time in various public offices, both appointive and elective, and we should be grateful to them for that.

The short-term service argument is a myth. What matters is the ability and quality of the character of those we choose.

One thing has changed in the last 200 years, and term limit supporters would be wise to notice – and propose remedies – for it. We allowed the terms of office to be lengthened to the degree that too many public officials are far less reachable.

Patrick Henry served seven terms as Governor of Virginia, John Hancock six as Governor of Massachusetts. Those were one-year terms. Most local and state officials had one-year terms well into the 19th Century.

Debates over ratification of the original constitution focused not on term limits but on term length. Many complaints were made about allowing members of the U.S. House to serve for two full years.

The idea of representatives as policy makers as opposed to actual representatives became popular with academics and among the original Progressives towards the end of the 19th Century, when terms of office began to be extended. The argument given was “we don’t want our representatives to be constantly campaigning.”

Translation – we don’t want them going back to the folks who elect them to discover the ideas we’re selling them on really suck. We need to isolate them from their constituents for as long as possible to get all this unpopular crap passed.

Two-year terms for governors and others became common at the beginning of this century, driven by a coalition of policy wonks and politicians who wanted less supervision. That has now been extended almost everywhere to four-year terms. The group of elitists centering around former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is pushing it for legislators.

One unintended consequence of the four-year term in Arizona has been the incredible growth in recalls, particularly in local governments like town councils and school boards where the jurisdictions are still small enough to be handled by citizen rebellion. It would make more sense to simply put the terms back to two years.

It would also make sense to reduce terms for all state and county officials as well as city councils and school boards. One can directly chart the growth of government at all levels to the growth in the length of terms for those who did the growing.

One additional advantage is that off-year and local elections are great message senders to those holding power. Having them twice as often would greatly enhance that communications device and give us less reliance on guys like Rasmussen and Zogby for national trends.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Government, Political Science

’09 was a pivotal political year

December 30, 2009 By Leave a Comment

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer

Measuring the relevance of important dates usually comes later. Some, like 1941 and 9-11, are immediately obvious, others need time to sink in. In October of 1929, nobody thought “wow, we’re starting the Great Depression.”

Often converging events need their dots connected. The year 2009 had a lot of converging events.

Like 1929, 2009 started with a new President and large majorities for his party in both houses of Congress where the numbers are strikingly similar – 58-39-1 and 267-167-1 then for Republicans, to 58-40-2 and 256-178-1 for Democrats now. Biggest difference was Herbert Hoover won by 17 percent to Obama’s 7 percent, and carried 41 of 48 states.

The 1930 election gave Democrats eight more Senators and 53 Representatives. GOP popularity sank while Hoover instituted counter-productive proto-New Deal measures. He was smashed in 1932 by FDR and Democrats gained 90 more House seats and 13 Senators. After FDR’s 1936 re-election, it was 76D, 16R, 4I, and 331D-76R-4I.

The tide turned in 1938 with heavy Republican gains. The New Deal was out of gas, unemployment was rising and an arrogant President tried packing the Supreme Court. The events of 2009 are accelerating and compacting that process for President Obama, who is far more arrogant and less skilled than FDR.

As Michael Barone notes, 60-plus years of mounting federal bureaucracy make it impossible for any President to do what FDR did when he told Harry Hopkins to simply put the unemployed on the government payroll. “Shovel-ready jobs” are a myth. Civil service, due process, union deals and environmental regulations make it impossible to hand anybody a shovel without months, often years of red tape. Unemployment will remain high until the private sector creates more jobs.

FDR and other successful Presidents focused on implementing the popular portions of their agenda first. Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders in 2009 exposed the degeneration of the federal legislative process in forcing an unpopular health care measure upon too many people. In doing so, they exhibit a political cluelessness rivaling those members of Czar Nicholas II’s Court ,who had no idea who Vladimir Lenin was up to the moment he had them shot.

Too many liberals look down their elitist noses at millions who are part of the latest populist reaction to bad governance that emerged in 2009 in the Tea Party movement. About the only thing that could prevent massive Republican gains, including the White House in 2012, would be the failure of the GOP to absorb Tea Parties and force them into their own party. The only hope for liberal Democrats is that the GOP is as inept as they are.

The year 2009 also exposed the massive manipulation occurring by pseudo-scientists supposedly compiling the climate data used to justify their political agenda. While attention focused on the sleazy e-mails (probably leaked, not hacked), more relevant was the databases exposed that have folks like Russian scientists wondering where the real data they sent disappeared to. Warm Earthers and their Democrat co-religionists took a bath on this one.

Strikingly obvious in 2009 was the almost total collapse of the old elite and in-bred media. They’ve been gradually replaced by a combination of cable news, talk radio and the internet, which continue to report what they ignore or, worse, misunderstand.

Finally, only the clueless believe “there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.” The year 2009 ended with all 60 Democrat and Independent senators voting for Obamacare and all 40 Republicans voting against it. Polarization and partisanship have never been greater.

That polarization gives us the clarity needed to make real decisions and exposes the trite notion that somehow everything can be compromised. It may well be the greatest contribution we got from 2009.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Guest Opinion, Political Parties

The Center is a Relative Concept

December 23, 2009 By 5 Comments

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer

The late GOP Congressman and 1972 American Independent Party Presidential candidate John Schmitz always claimed he was a member of the John Birch Society to appeal to the moderates in his district. In 1968, I was elected chairman of the Los Angeles County Young Republicans as the centrist candidate. I was supported by both the Birchers and the Objectivists.

I’m not making this up. I only report it to again illustrate that the center is a relative concept, and that moderation is far more a demeanor than an epistemology.

I was correctly taken to task for a prior column where I stated that should State Sen. Jonathan Paton enter the race for the GOP nomination in CD8 next year, he might run as a moderate. Sen. Paton called to tell me that’s difficult for someone with his solid conservative voting record on issues from gun control and abortion to taxation and spending.

The “moderate” possibility came from a Democrat consultant friend of his. Paton responded that was someone proposing how he should run, not how he would if he does.

Fair enough, but some advice. Spend a little more time with Tea Party folks and a little less with Democrat consultants.

My old colleague Jim Nintzel at the Tucson Weekly sees Paton as the GOP heavyweight in the CD8 race, and thinks it’s a replay of the Democrat CD8 primary of 2006, where Iraqi combat veteran Jeff Latas was wiped out by State Sen. Gabby Giffords’ late entry, with Iraqi combat veteran Jesse Kelly playing the Latas role and Paton Gabby’s. Putting aside two other Iraqi combat vets already in the GOP race, Brian Miller and Andy Goss, and Paton’s own Iraqi service, the races aren’t analogous. Here’s why.

Democrats aren’t Republicans. Democrat primary voters aren’t impressed by a 20-year lieutenant colonel with an Air Force Cross, and are downright suspicious even when he’s a lefty. My take on Democrat behavior erred judging that race because of my own biases. Jim’s current take on GOP behavior errs for the same reason.

2010 isn’t 2006. Politics are tidal. Conservative Republicans now have the wind at their back instead of in their face. And incumbent legislators have hardly grown in stature.

Latas never raised any money. Kelly already has a quarter million. Latas garnered little big name support. Kelly has many heavy hitters both in and out of state, including talk show host Mark Levin, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and former House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter joining Congressman Trent Franks, Sheriffs Joe Arpaio and Paul Babeu, and Paton’s State Senate colleague Al Melvin in state. Even more important, the troops who turn out primary voters really like him.

Others are already committed to Goss, who’s from the Cochise County portion of Paton’s Senate district, and Miller, who gets to even more gun shows than I do. Paton may be too late. Eight months ago when Kelly announced, Gabby looked like a re-election slam dunk. Somewhere between Cap and Tax and ObamaCare the blue dog faded to pastel.

One comparison Republicans hope won’t re-occur is the clumsy muscle job party heavies pulled in favor of State Rep. Steve Huffman in the 2006 GOP primary. Conservatives would now rebel if you tried to force feed them Ronald Reagan. And some who drove the Huffman operation, like GOP money guru Jim Click, already support Kelly.

Paton isn’t Huffman. He’s in the GOP conservative mainstream ca. 2010 along with Kelly, Miller and Goss. Should he choose to run he’ll have a good shot as long as whatever GOP establishment types supporting him don’t follow the heavy-handed route and make him look like Huffman.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Political Parties, Political Science

GOP has self-recruited young talent

December 9, 2009 By 11 Comments

The “woe is me” wing of the GOP should note those reports of their demise were a tad premature.

Pundits telling us the future is with Democrats based on youth and ethnicity ignore that the young grow up and ethnic minorities, even when artificially compressed into plantation districts by hack leaders, ultimately act in their own self interest, move away and follow the Irish, the Italians and others into the American mainstream.

Terri ProudRepublicans concerned about youth should check the inordinately large batch of talent seeking local office. Here in District 26 note Terri Proud, a young mother of two planning to make this district solid GOP in 2010. She’s bright, articulate, attractive and has a better grasp of issues than some already there.

In Congressional District Seven, Ruth McClung, 27, is about to save the GOP from the embarrassment of again nominating racist pariah Joe Sweeney. McClung has a unique approach based on the cliche “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist.” As an employee of Raytheon who works on rocket design, she is a rocket scientist.

Ruth McClungRepublicans should be embarrassed with Sweeney as a nominee, but incumbent CD7 Congressman Raul Grijalva should notice that a political derelict publicly repudiated by leaders in his own party got 36 percent of the vote against him in a heavy Democrat year.

The big GOP talent show is in CD 8, held by pastel-dog Democrat Gabby Giffords.

Four Republicans are running there.

Tom Carlson and Andy Goss are so far the weakest. Neither has noticed a weekly newspaper in the northern portion of the district with a columnist who writes about this stuff who also hosts a radio talk show.

Carlson served as an Army Reserve officer in Kuwait. Goss is from Sierra Vista and is an Iraqi Army veteran. Their websites are carlsonforcongress.com and gossforcongress.com.

It’s hard to avoid Brian Miller and Jesse Kelly both at GOP and other events.

They’re young, attractive, articulate, intelligent conservatives who would give Gabby a real brawl that her glass jaw can’t handle after her Cap and Trade and ObamaCare votes. Both Kelly and Miller have attracted national attention and, like army vet Goss, are under-40 combat veterans of the Middle East.

Edge for now is with Kelly, who has collected both the most endorsements and the most money. Kelly served as a Marine infantryman, Miller as an A-10 pilot and instructor. Websites are: votejessekelly.com and brianmillerforcongress.com.

The usual backroom GOP suspects have noticed Gabby’s vulnerable, and impressed with incumbent state legislators, are pushing State Sen. Jonathan Paton. They tried this in 2006 with State Rep. Steve Huffman, who lost the primary to former State Rep. Randy Graf, who was promptly shivved by them for being “too conservative.” (When you hear that, read “too uncontrollable.”)

In 2008 they muscled everybody out for State Senate President Tim Bee, someone everybody liked, raised him plenty of money but forced him into a mush-mouthed campaign. He was beaten as big as Graf.

CD8GOPCandidates

Political street talk has Paton running as a “moderate.” If so, he’ll lose the GOP Primary to either Miller or Kelly, maybe both. The 2008 election moved America just far enough left for more people to find out what that really means. Voters are fed up with party hacks.

Paton’s six months in Iraq as an intel officer is a higher qualification than being a state senator, but any attempt to shove him onto GOP voters here will be met with overwhelming resistance.

Something more relevant than ephemeral youth votes. All five GOP candidates in CD 8 wore a uniform, two more than ran for President (McCain, Hunter, Paul) .

Good trend.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections