By Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.

Goldwater Institute

Today, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a new book that provides a simple, direct way of comparing the effectiveness of public education in every state. I co-authored the Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform with Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Dan Lips and school choice expert Andrew LeFevre. ALEC is distributing the book to state lawmakers across the country.

For the Report Card, we rank all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on student test scores and learning gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We focused in particular on the scores of low-income students who were not in special education programs from 2003 to 2009, the years in which all jurisdictions took the tests used by NAEP

Our rankings give the same weight to overall performance (which states had the highest test scores) and overall gains (which states made the most progress over time). The table below shows the rankings:

Our rankings are not favorable for states with low test scores that didn’t improve over time, like Arizona. States fare well in the rankings if they had relatively high NAEP scores that continued to rise during those six years.

Florida scored No. 3 on the list because that state had high scores (ranked 11th overall) and made big gains (ranked first overall), even though a majority of Florida’s students come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

This year the Arizona Legislature adopted a number of Florida’s previous education reforms that led to that state’s top ranking. Now, policymakers should use this new report card as a rallying cry to make sure those reforms are carried out in every Arizona public school.

The ALEC Report Card demonstrates once again why when it comes to K-12 reform: I’ll have what Florida is having!

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

Wow.

Did everyone see Paulina Morris’ desperate, insane-sounding last minute plea for votes?

In it, she viciously attacks all of her opponents, by name, one by one, in the most abrasive manner possible.  Which would be good, if voters were looking for intensely personal attacks delivered in the most shrill manner possible.

To think, it took only one week to knock Ben Quayle off the lofty perch of “worst ad of the 2010 cycle.”  I didn’t think it could ever be done.

Let’s go over some of her charges against her opponents:

1) If Vernon Parker didn’t play the race card, he wouldn’t have any card at all.

What a seriously nasty thing to say.  Vernon embraces his up by the bootstraps story, much as you have done, Paulina, with your tales of your parents escaping Cuba.  Vernon also embraces his race (he didn’t hesitate to put his face on signs running in a lilly white district).  This is more than I can say for you, Paulina, who was known to all of us as Paulina Morris-Vasquez until you decided to run.

2) I’m not a bored rich man looking for a hobby.

Right, you’re a bored rich woman looking for a hobby.  You haven’t advanced an original thought in this campaign, starting with your first web video which made fun of the fact that Jim Waring deigns to knock on doors and meet voters.

3) Questioning Steve Moak’s using his non-profit to market his for-profit company.

Okay, but your personal wealth comes from your husband’s successful lobbying for developers and the liquor industry.  Is this the hill you want to charge?

This video is all wrong from start to finish.  Kind of like your campaign, Paulina.  I would be frustrated too if I’d spent so much time and money and not cracked the margin of error.  But at least go out with some class.

PS–Why not attack Crump?  He’s your toughest competition for second to last place.

While in Congress, JD Hayworth sent out a press release bragging about his ability to bring home the bacon!  And boy did he…to the tune of over $445,000,000. Yep, that is millions.  This must have been before “the scales were removed from his eyes” allowing him to see the true effects of wasteful Washington spending and to become a consistent conservative.

July 29, 2005

Hayworth District’s Transportation Priorities Big Winners In Latest

Authorization Bill

Congressman Steers ‘Earmarked’ Funds Back Home To AZ 

• $3.2 million project from 40th Street to Baseline in Maricopa County; for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of an I-10 widening 
• $2.4 million for the design and construction of the Rio Salado Pedestrian Bridge in Tempe;
• $2.09 million the new ASU Scottsdale Center for New Technology and Innovation at the intersection of Scottsdale and McDowell roads; to plan design and construct a transit passenger center in Scottsdale to serve
• $5.4 million over four years to construct the East Valley Metro Bus facility in Tempe; and
• $434.4 million through 2009 for the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project

Among the pork” projects…a bridge to go over the now dry Tempe Town Lake:

 The Town Lake Pedestrian Bridge will connect existing bike and pedestrian paths on the north and south sides of Tempe Town Lake, allowing those who continue on the north bank to access the Indian Bend Wash without having to interface with motor vehicles. Those who cross from north to south will be able to link with the Mill Avenue District. This bridge will create a much safer transportation route for runners, walkers, bicyclists and those who use wheelchairs.” (City of Tempe Website, www.tempe.gov, Accessed 5/6/10)

After funds for the bridge were approved in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization Bill, “The Bridge” was derided as wasteful pork barrel spending, and even compared to the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere”.  It got plenty of attention, not so good attention.

The Arizona Republic’s Robert Robb Asked, “Why, Pray Tell, Is It A Federal Responsibility To Build … A Footbridge To Connect Trails Across The Western Bank Of Tempe Town Lake?” “There’s a tradition of pointing to the earmarks in other states as pork. But the real issue isn’t pork. It’s the federal government doing something that should be a state or local responsibility. And you don’t have to look beyond the borders of Arizona for a multitude of examples. Why, pray tell, is it a federal responsibility to build a bicycle-pedestrian bridge at McDowell Road and 35th Avenue in Phoenix, or a footbridge to connect trails across the western bank of Tempe Town Lake?” (Robert Robb, “Republicans Snap Open Taxpayer Wallets Again,” The Arizona Republic, 8/5/05)

In 2008, The East Valley Tribune Editorialized That …Tempe Should Reject Federal Funding For The Bridge, Comparing It To The Infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” In Alaska. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is now well-known for having once supported what has been called the ‘bridge to nowhere,’ a $400 million proposal for a structure that, if Congress had funded it, would have given about 50 Alaskans on one island road access to a more populated one that is currently reached by a short ferry ride. In the face of this, Tempe city officials might be persuaded to do, regarding a bridge of their own, a similar about-face to the one the Republican vice-presidential nominee did.” (Editorial, “Tempe Should Take A Pass On Bridge Funds,” East Valley Tribune, 9/14/08

The East Valley Tribune’s Le Templar Pointed Out That While The “Bridge To Nowhere” Was Costlier Than The Tempe Bridge, “The Principle Is The Same.” “The Tribune Editorial Board noted today an interesting parallel between the Alaskan issue and a proposed pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake that will be funded mostly from federal dollars set aside in highway funding bills. The scale of the two projects certainly were different ($400 million for the Ketchikan bridge vs. $5.7 million for the Tempe bridge). But the principle is the same, isn’t it?” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

• Templar Noted That While Republican J.D. Hayworth “Was The Bridge’s Primary Champion,” The Bridge Represented The Kind Of “Pork-Barrel Spending” That Another Republican, John McCain, Railed Against. “Still, Arizona Sen. John McCain has built his campaign for president, in part, on his absolute refusal to seek pork-barrel spending that the Tempe bridge seems to represent. (Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., was the bridge’s primary champion.)” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

Well, when a candidate becomes the laughing stock of the nation, it’s very unlikely that they will prove successful in their campaign. The sad fact is that if Ben Quayle is the Republican nominee for Congress, our party WILL lose the seat to the Democrat in November.

This is a seat which should be solidly Republican, and even staunch conservatives (like our own Espressopundit) predict a Quayle nomination will equal a Democrat takeover of this seat.

Our shared goal is to put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. We cannot jeopardize that by giving the Democrats an easy target in Ben “Brock Landers” Quayle.

Thanks Obama Kool-Aid drinkers.

This morning Nik Richie, proprietor of a sex website known as “The Dirty,” www.thedirty.com (WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK) made the claim that Ben Quayle, son of Vice President Dan Quayle and candidate for office, was one of the co-creators of that site.

“The Dirty” mocks and denigrates women, features them with little or no clothing on, and comments on their sex lives or need for plastic surgery.  The website celebrates a hedonistic lifestyle of drinking, debauchery, and deviant, casual sex.  The post on today’s The Dirty suggests that Ben Quayle not only co-founded the site, but has contributed tons of content under the name “Brock Landers,” a character from the movie “Boogie Nights,” about 1970′s porn stars.

The post prior to the one outing Ben Quayle as a co-founder and contributor to this sex website discusses a woman’s botched boob job, an unusual piercing, the f-bomb, and something I can’t even mention.

Advertisements on The Dirty include a dating website for married people looking to start affairs (“Life is short, have an affair”), which comes with a money back guarantee if you are unable to commit adultery through the site.

Time for some fast answers, Ben Quayle.  If you categorically deny the charges made by Nik Richie, I will remove this post while it gets sorted out.

Democrats are going to have a field day with this.  Our nominee as a sex website proprietor could potentially put a safe Republican seat in jeopardy.  Daily Kos already has the story here.

UPDATE:  Nik Richie is promising damaging proof that Ben Quayle is Brock Landers if he denies the allegations.  He also includes a link to what he calls Ben Quayle aka Brock Landers’ best work.

Last night on Grassroots Interviews I interviewed LD 6 House candidate Carl Seel. He, Lori Klein and David Fitzgerald are running as a team. I am thoroughly impressed with Carl’s scores from Americans for Prosperity, PAChyderm Coalition, Goldwater Institute and the Arizona 2010 Project. So far, Carl has served only one term in the House, but he now has a proven track record of being one of Arizona’s premiere conservative legislators. That the notorious RINOs, McCainiacs, and open borders crowd like Jeff Vath and Horst Kraus are trying to personally attack him (because they can’t hit him on the issues) tells us everything we need to know about Carl: he’s upset all the right people. LD 6′s voters would be utterly foolish not to re-elect Carl.

Link to Carl Seel interview

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Watch the Video Where McCain Admits he Lied to try and Win the Election

Then contribute by midnight tonight and forward to everyone you know

Ben Quayle has said repeatedly in this campaign that he’s his own man. His dad has said he wouldn’t have a role in Ben’s campaign. Yet, in his latest commercial, Ben cites the fact that his only experience is that he’s watched his father’s political career.

Considering Ben was just a teenager when his dad had to turn over the keys to the Naval Observatory to Al Gore, Ben must have a great memory.

Ben is right, though. The only rationale for his candidacy is the fact that his last name is Quayle. There is no other reason that someone who graduated from law school in 2002, and was not admitted to the Arizona Bar until 2009 (but claims to have worked as a lawyer in Arizona since 2006) should be running for Congress, especially with a string of one-year employment stints at various law firms around the country.

Ben is running simply because of his family’s name– and that’s been tolerable– it happens everywhere, and while it’s a shame, it’s a fact of political life.

But this has gone to a new level, an unacceptable level.

Papa Quayle serves as a Director of Cerebus, a private equity firm that happens to own Chrysler Motors. They received BILLIONS of dollars in bailout money for Chrysler. And that’s not the worst part. Dan Quayle and Ben Quayle went to Cerebus’s New York HQ, met with their executives– who are rich with government-bailout money— and got them to give nearly $50,000 to Ben’s Campaign for Congress.

Nearly $50,000 in dirty, government-bailout money, procured for Cerebus by a former Vice President, and funneled to his son’s congressional campaign. Outrageous. This isn’t a few dollars we’re talking about. At $42,000, Bailed-Out Cerebus is Ben’s biggest donor.

Here is the info on Cerebus:  http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html

Call Ben Quayle at 602-492-4236, and tell him to return donations from bailed out companies.

If a private company needs money so badly that they take from the taxpayer, they shouldn’t be giving to political candidates.

By SJ Miller

 When on July 22 the AZ Republic Editorial Board asked Jim Deakin his rationale for describing himself as “tea party” activist, conservative, or similar when in fact not one Arizona tea party group had endorsed him, Deakin’s reply was a real hoot:

 “Tea party is a state of mind.”

 Deakin’s initial reply and subsequent follow-up to Question #5 of the AZ Catholic Conference 2010 candidate survey suggests that he may believe the same about the U.S. Constitution–”it’s just a state of mind.”

 Question 5 asks whether the candidate would Support or Oppose the following:

“Prohibiting state and local government agencies, including police departments, from accepting matricula consular cards as a form of identification.”

 Deakin circled “O” for Oppose.

 So Mr. Deakin wants to allow states and local government agencies to accept as valid ID a card issued by a foreign government (Mexico) for its nationals residing largely illegally in the US?  A card so notoriously fraudulent it’s even rejected by the Mexican federal government that issues it, as well as the majority of Mexican states and Mexican banks.

 Both the FBI and Dept of Homeland Security (back in the days when DHS was headed by someone who cared about US safety) have warned against accepting this card.

 It’s understandable why the Catholic Diocese considers this item important.  The Church is a notorious illegal alien advocate and not only urges acceptance of the card itself, but routinely makes church facilities available as “Mexican consulate for a Day” to issue the Mexican Matricula Cards.  Who knows—perhaps the Mexican government even “shares” with the Catholic Church part of the $28 fee charged to the illegal alien for the card.

 Greedy U.S. banks couldn’t wait to accept the Mexican Matricula Consular card as valid ID for opening accounts, credit cards, and home and auto loans, giving illegal aliens access to the U.S. financial and credit-reporting system.   It also provided a crutch for cities who needed “valid-ID” to support their illegal alien sanctuary policies. 

 Despite assurances by the Mexican government, every MMC holder isn’t a Mexican national.  They’ve been easily obtained over the internet with no personal appearance, notwithstanding the Mexican government’s touting the card’s “enhanced security features.” The Border Patrol has arrested nationals of terrorist-sponsoring nations with multiple Mexican matricula cards.  

 I felt that surely Mr. Deakin misunderstood the question, perhaps getting caught in the double-negative (“prohibiting” and “oppose”).

 But appallingly, Mr. Deakin knew exactly what he’d answered.  After I posted on the Independence Caucus “Questions” page the narrative above, Adonia Deakin posted her husband’s follow-up answer on Monday, August 2:

 “Jim opposes any legislation at the federal level that would create a “National ID’. It is entirely up to the states as individuals states rights to decide for themselves what forms of ID is acceptable. Based on the 10th Amendment.”

 Mr. Deakin has just demonstrated the danger of depending on a catch-all “I follow the Constitution” instead of reading the document but comprehending its application and how the various sections work together. 

 Reading the 10^th Amendment quickly shows why Mr. Deakin’s claim is wrong.  

Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A “state’s right” must meet TWO constitutional requirements: (1)  it isn’t given to the feds, and (2) it isn’t prohibited to the states.  It must be both; only one won’t do. 

Now comes “Article I, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States.”

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

It doesn’t qualify as a “state’s right under Amendment 10 because it’s already been prohibited to the States!

Doesn’t Mr. Deakin understand that an individual state who recognizes as valid ID a card issued by a foreign government (like Mexico) has entered into an agreement or compact with that foreign government! 

I’d love to be in the Senate Visitors’ Gallery to hear Senator Jeff Sessions explain that concept publicly to “the gentleman from Arizona” and listen to the bi-partisan snickers from both sides of the aisle.

Then “the gentleman from Arizona” could give his rousing line for C-Span broadcasting:

“The Constitution is a state of mind.”

Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. John McCain announce the F-35 to LAFB

On Thursday officials announced the long-awaited and much hoped for decision that Luke Air Force Base was the preferred site for the F-35 Joint Srike Fighter  as a replacement for the F-16 fighter.  Sen. John McCain and Governor Jan Brewer held a press conference today in response to that announcement.  Both the Governor and the Senator have worked to keep Luke open and understand the vital economic role it plays, not only in the west valley but the state as a whole. 

Gov. Brewer and Sen. McCain singled out State Senator John Nelson, LD-12, as being particularly instrumental in keeping Luke open and bringing the F-35 to our state.  West valley mayors Cavanaugh of Goodyear, Schoaf of Litchfield Park, and Scruggs of Glendale along with County Supervisor Max Wilson were in attendance and also were  commended for their efforts. 

The F-35 was met with some resistance due to the noise issues it may bring in comparison to older models of the F-16.   However, in answer to a reporter’s question to that effect, Sen. McCain made the point that the F-35 is not any louder than the newer, upgraded engines of the currently flown F-16.

The economic impact of Luke is over $2.7 billion annually and 8,000 jobs statewide as a direct result of the operations at LAFB. The new F-35 is expected to bring in another $2 million-plus dollars in jobs for construction and development. 

An environmental impact study will be completed with final award to be announced in 2011.

A Chamber of Commerce mailer for Rep. Adam Driggs has recently hit mailboxes in LD 11. The mailer tries to paint Driggs as some kind of immigration hawk. Anyone who pays attention to Arizona politics knows full well that Driggs is part of the “Sanctuary Six” (Driggs, Crandall, Mason, Barto, Quelland, Konopnicki) that walked out on a vote on HB 2280, an anti-sanctuary cities bill and the precursor to SB 1070, rather than vote on the bill. Earlier in the session, Driggs had held up anti-sanctuary legislation for the entire session by using his power as Committee Chairman to not give it a hearing. Then, when Sen. Russell Pearce got the bill around Driggs to the House floor, Driggs walked out as one of the Sanctuary Six.

A look at Driggs’ contributors shows a host of open borders McCainiacs. Most notably among these are Deb Gullet, former notoriously liberal legislator and former McCain Chief of Staff. She was the Gallagher & Kennedy lobbyist that sent an e-mail around touting Greater Phoenix Leadership’s (GPL’s) “Twelve in `10” fundraiser for liberal Republicans to help Democrats raise money and get elected. Reps. Driggs’ and Konopnicki’s names again pop up on the list of pro-corporate handout legislators favored by GPL. Sean Noble is yet another McCainiac and open-borders guy. He too has given to Driggs. Marcus Dell’Artino who works for First Strategic, the same firm employing Wes Gullet, a former McCain staffer and Deb Gullet’s husband, has also contributed to Driggs. Many First Strategic employees have been donating to ultra-liberal 20+ year incumbent Democrat Congressman Ed Pastor. Pastor is about as open-borders as anyone can get. Koponicki has contributed to Driggs. Wonder why? Couldn’t be because he wants like-minded liberals in office to help him push his pro-open borders agenda through the legislature. Shiree Verdone, another McCain staffer also contributed to Driggs. Would the McCainiacs be supporting Driggs if he wasn’t one of them? Almost to a man, the Sanctuary Six endorsed McCain, Quelland being the only name absent from the list. Almost to a man, the Chamber endorsed the Sanctuary Six, again, Quelland being the exception. The ties between McCainiacs, the open-borders crowd and the pro-“business” handouts crowd are unmistakable.

The first lesson should be that anyone receiving a mailer from the Chamber needs to be very skeptical. The voters need to dig deeper to learn the truth. The second lesson is that the Chamber knows very well that its open-borders position is not what the voters want. The Chamber routinely opposes efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and it wants to elect open-borders legislators like Adam Driggs to prevent Russell Pearce from becoming Senate President. That it tries to get them elected by posing them as “tough-on-crime, secure border leaders” is both hypocritical and dishonest.

I was chatting with a Penny Kotterman supporter the other day about their candidate’s campaign signs.  I was mocking, in a good natured way, the fact Kotterman’s signs list “Parent” as her #1 qualification for Superintendent of Public Instruction.  I commented that it hardly seemed like a selling point worth top billing, given that almost everyone has kids at some point, with some parents obviously doing a better job of it than others.

“Don’t you get it?  Penny is a parent,” the Kotterman supporter explained, with emphasis on the word “parent” as if I might not be getting the point.  Which I wasn’t.

“Um, and that’s a selling point?”

“Because… her opponent…is not a parent.”

I’m guessing my face showed I was still a bit puzzled about what the point was.  So the Kotterman supporter explained.

“Penny’s opponent is not a parent…Penny’s opponent is gay.”

My eyebrows lifted.  Comprehension dawned on me.  What had seemed like a random choice of wording for a campaign sign had turned out to have a grand strategy behind it.

“Who said Republicans are the only ones who can talk in code?” the Kotterman supporter asked rhetorically with a smile.

Kotterman’s supporter went on to explain that a candidate being gay wasn’t an issue, but that some general election voters might think it is, so Kotterman was just going to stress what she is:  Parent!  (And apparently this involves a bit of of whispering about her opponent being gay.)

I was a bit flat footed and didn’t have a good reply.  I think I was just surprised at how I had missed something in plain sight.  Penny is a parent!  Not like the gay guy!  Yep, a pretty clever marketing strategy, in an underhanded sort of way.

There are a few things thought that I wish I would have said at the time.

I wish I would have taken issue with the suggestion that Republicans are a party that talks in code.  Ok, maybe Republicans use to be such a party.  Back in the civil rights era, Republicans who talked about “states rights” sometimes were really just dissing the idea of protecting the rights of African-Americans.   But that was a long time ago.  And, as I’m sure RNC Chairman Michael Steele would explain, racism absolutely isn’t what the modern Republican Party is about.

For the most part, Republicans today don’t talk in code.  In fact, we usually lack any kind of subtly whatsoever.  If a Republican candidate has something to say about their opponent, it’s usually going to be printed in very large all-caps letters across the top of their campaign mailer.  “THE OTHER GUY IS A LIBERAL WHO WANTS TO RAISE TAXES AND KICKS THEIR DOG!”

Republicans don’t talk in code…because we don’t have too.  Our ideas are generally popular with the electorate.  That’s why Republicans will put the words “Conservative” on their campaign signs.  When was the last time a Democratic candidate put “Liberal” on their sign?

Democrats though have had to get good at talking in code as a matter of political survival.  So it’s no surprise that, having become dependent on talking in code in general, Democrat candidates know how to turn that skill on each other to win primaries.

Back to Kotterman… if she wants voters to know her opponent is gay and that she isn’t, that’s her prerogative.  It’s a free country, free speech, yada yada yada.  This strategy will probably win Kotterman some votes in the fast-growing Hispanic community, which polls show tend to be pretty traditional in their views on family life and not so supportive of same-sex couples.  It’s probably good politics going into a general election too.

It would be better though if Kotterman were not just straight, but also straight-forward.  If she views her opponent’s homosexuality is a deal breaker for an education position, she should just say so.  If she thinks gay-is-ok but that voters are unenlightened Neanderthals, and that therefore a gay man shouldn’t be the Democratic nominee, she should have the courage to say so publicly in plain language and not just on coded campaign signs and though whisper campaigns.

I also wish I would have had the presence of mine at the time to say that I don’t think a candidate’s sexual orientation should matter.  This doesn’t mean I think much of Kotterman’s opponent, because I don’t.  His liberal policy positions are just as bad as Kotterman’s.  (I’m a conservative and would vote for the Republican nominee regardless.)  I just don’t like the idea of disqualifying candidates from consideration because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  It strikes me as un-American.

Postscript -

Kotterman shows a remarkable degree of message discipline.  I’m looking at page after page on her website, and the first sentence of regular text on nearly every page says something to the effect of “Penny is a parent…” or “As a parent, Penny…”

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Now this has gotten ridiculous!

Steve Moak is gonna stand at the border with his binoculars to PROTECT US???

Does anyone remember Mike Dukakis in the tank?

It’s time for these candidates to stop pandering in such absurd ways. Are we supposed to believe Moak has been standing at the border with his binoculars? Maybe there were some cool birds he was watching, either way, this is getting ridiculous.

Mr. Moak, CD 3 is NOT for sale.