Re-election of Arpaio a vote for rule of law

(PNI) As a snowbird, I was happily surprised at the support for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

It's good to know that most people believe in the rule of law.

I am very pro-immigration and very anti-illegal immigration.

We definitely need reform. Until we get it, the existing laws should be enforced.

-- Dean Dalrymple,

Sun City

An archaic ballot system

As a former poll worker and supervisor in the 2008 election, I'm dismayed but not surprised at the number of provisional ballots cast in the recent election. It is the reason I did not offer my time this year and one of the reasons I now vote by permanent mail ballot.

I believe Arizona's voting laws are archaic and detrimental to the tradition of in-person voting. Why? Because polling places constantly change and voters constantly move.

Our poll workers have many important duties. Verifying polling places for voters should not be one of them. Nor should they have to endure the anger of voters who wait in line only to be told they must go to another location or use a provisional ballot.

Why should it matter where a registered voter casts his ballot, any more than it matters what mailbox I use to cast mine?

Our voting laws must be updated, or we will continue to see more provisional ballots -- which take days to review, verify and be counted -- and there will be fewer people willing to work at the polls.

-- Mary Marshall, Mesa

Cut Congress' pay, perks

Why would someone sign off on a document from a no-name nobody like Grover Norquist unless that person feared losing his or her cushy job?

It seems obvious that the reason these politicians sign the document for no higher taxes is that they will lose campaign funding from Grover and his cronies. That may lead to having to get a real job and go to work for a living.

Solution: Reduce salaries and benefits in Congress to teacher-level wages so you get people to run for office who truly care about doing the right thing for the people of America and would never bow down to a Grover type.

-- Gary Graham, Anthem

God provided marijuana

Regarding the "Medical-pot prescriptions studied" article last week:

I'm endlessly amazed at the state government's audacity against the will of its citizens when it comes to marijuana. The last thing the government has is the right to look at its citizens' medical records. There are laws against it.

If we're going to update the law, let's remove the restriction where patients won't be allowed to continue growing their plant medicine when the courts finally allow a dispensary to open within 25 miles of their location.

It's a plant, folks. We have an endocannabinoid receptor system for the THC and CBD molecules. It means we have a symbiotic relationship with the plant. Look it up.

Wonder when we're going to realize it's a vitamin that God has provided for us. For free. The peaceful plant is coming home. Prepare.

-- Mike Templeton, Mesa

Mormonism's bright face

Now that the election is over and the candidate I voted for lost the election, I can now pick the real winner: the Mormon religion.

Mitt Romney demonstrated by his actions that he lived a faith devoted to service to mankind. (I am not a Mormon.)

Had he won, he would have been a superb example of what a true American looks and acts like.

It is unfortunate that the other side of the coin is Chicago-style politics (Need I say more?) and Hollywood fakes.

It was unfortunate that, when Romney said 47 percent would not vote for him because they are on the government dole, he was right.

The United States will never again be the same because 50 percent or more are getting freebies from the government, and that is growing every day and people feel it is owed to them. Now that we have passed that threshold, we can never turn back.

It is a very sad state of affairs, but the Democratic Party is now the Socialist Party of America, and we are headed in the same direction as Greece, Spain, France and all other socialist countries using a failed model.

-- Richard Ksenich,

Phoenix

We must back education

I wish to sound the alarm over our failure in Arizona to support education.

In California, voters approved a ballot measure to raise taxes by $6billion annually over seven years to help California's public schools. By contrast, to quote this newspaper, "Arizona voters … rejected a ballot proposal to retain a sales-tax increase dedicated to education."

I am retired, no longer have children, and as a retiree am not eager to pay more taxes. However, I am also a retired pediatrician and now work as a full-time elementary-school volunteer coordinating a science lab for children in grades K-6.

By starving Arizona's schools financially, we will surely deprive our children of an education as good or hopefully better than the one we received.

Wake up, Arizona!

-- Dr.Ted Hecht, Scottsdale

Ads should thank voters

Now that the election is over, will we see any political ads thanking us for our support? Will that 30-second spot declare that the winner promises to work with the other side to finally get something done in the statehouse or Congress? Just wondering.

--Judy Darling,

Apache Junction

Founding Fathers aghast

Big government, the concept of voting in your own entitlements, and the something-for-nothing mentality triumphed.

Hard work, self-sufficiency, checks and balances, and small government lost big time.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in the grave.

--Richard Allen, Phoenix

Final note to Republicans

Well, well, well. Thanks to all of the overly rabid, poison-spewing, toxic-ad Republicans out there: You blew the election!

--Art Cote, Peoria

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Analysis: Clinton argues the case for re-election

CHARLOTTE – President Obama and his Republican opponents have fought to a draw for nearly four years over the best way to fix the economy. On Wednesday, Obama turned to the Democratic Party's explainer-in-chief to win the argument: Bill Clinton.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

President Obama joins former president Bill Clinton on stage following Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Wednesday.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

President Obama joins former president Bill Clinton on stage following Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Wednesday.

The former president did what he does best. He made the case for a Democratic-style economic revival based on investments in individuals and innovation. He stood up for the man who defeated his wife four years ago and stated the case against Mitt Romney better than anyone else has been able to do. For 48 minutes, he delivered a stunning tour de force that had delegates on their feet.

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: 'We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in,' " Clinton said in nominating Obama for a second term. "I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better."

That Democrats turned to Clinton — whose troubled presidency nevertheless produced a flourishing economy and four years of budget surpluses — reflects their inability to make the case that Americans are better off than they were four years ago. In recent days, top Democrats have stumbled awkwardly over that question.

Clinton, perhaps better than anyone else in the party, knows how to make that case — particularly in a venue that he has mastered as a convention speaker in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and now 2012.

"He takes over the room," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. "Clinton's … masterful at making the contrast."

Clinton certainly took over the room at precisely 10:34 p.m., to the same Fleetwood Mac song that was the theme of his 1992 campaign: Don't Stop.

"I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside," he said. When he was finished, Obama came out to embrace him.

Clinton's speech was akin to a point-by-point rebuttal of the entire Republican convention in Tampa last week. It was vintage Clinton the educator, explaining to an adoring audience where their party can brag about progress and the other side cannot.

To win the four-years-ago argument, Clinton contrasted Obama's administration and the one it followed under George W. Bush— and asked which one Americans want in 2012.

"The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in?" Clinton said. "If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility — a we're-all-in-this-together society — you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

Economic 'building blocks'

In an interview on NBC before the speech, Clinton said his task was to make Americans understand that the economy is on the upswing — even if they can't feel it yet. The message is simple: Be patient. "That's the whole election, really," Clinton said. "People have to decide whether something they can't feel is still the right direction for the country because of things that have been done."

So the former president delivered a full-throated, occasionally humorous and extemporaneous defense of Obama's record, from the 2009 economic stimulus to financial regulation, health care and student loan overhauls. He called them "the building blocks of a new American prosperity."

The endorsement of his Democratic successor came in contrast to 2008, when Clinton was a reluctant supporter of the young senator who blocked his wife Hillary's path to the White House. Over the past four years, the two men haven't bonded personally so much, but they have seen eye-to-eye on policy.

Clinton lauded Obama for seeking compromise and conciliation while Republicans have sought to block him at every turn. "One of the main reasons we should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation," Clinton said. As evidence, he noted Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate despite Biden's own campaign for president in 2008 — and picked another presidential contender for secretary of State.

"Heck," Clinton said, "he even appointed Hillary."

He peppered his prepared address with off-the-cuff remarks such as "Y'all better listen carefully to this, this is really important" — then responded point by point to attacks from Mitt Romney's campaign.

Clinton was eager to attack the Republican ticket — not on a personal level, but based on economic and fiscal policies he believes are ill-fated. Some of his toughest language came on issues he said were "personal to me," including GOP claims that Obama wants to dismantle the welfare overhaul Clinton signed in 1996 and his policies are responsible for a national debt that just topped $16 trillion.

"Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left," he said. "We simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double down on trickle-down."

Celebrating progress

Democrats were eager for someone to make the case of Clinton-Obama vs. Bush-Romney. The Time Warner Cable Arena was packed, forcing fire marshals to close the doors.

"It's no accident that Democrats celebrate our past presidents," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., "while Republicans virtually banish theirs."

In some ways, Obama has been Clinton's equal or more. While the then-president tried and failed to overhaul the nation's health care system, Obama succeeded. And while Clinton pushed through a deficit-reduction package in 1993 that helped lead to balanced budgets years later, Obama pushed through an economic stimulus package that many economists say helped prevent another Great Depression.

The task now will be for Obama not to pale by comparison tonight.

"Obama is an outstanding orator," says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. "He can hold up to Clinton."

Contributing: Deirdre Shesgreen, Gannett

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Re-Election Tricky for House Republican Freshmen

“I’ve got butterflies,” Mr. Schilling, Republican of Illinois, said as he walked into a news conference about a bridge that has needed renovation for years, one that Democrats have accused him of abandoning by backing a Republican ban on setting aside federal money for such home-state projects.

“If Durbin is here,” he said, referring to Senator Richard J. Durbin, the state’s senior senator, “I’ll give it right back.”

He looked around and saw that Mr. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a man unafraid of a partisan confrontation, was absent. “Whew,” he said. “Makes things smoother.”

During his 2010 campaign, Mr. Schilling, a pizza parlor owner and political novice, labored to persuade people that a Republican deserved a chance in a seat that Democrats had held for almost three decades. Now, like scores of other Republican freshmen across the country who triumphed that year in a Republican wave, he must prove he should be permitted to stay.

For Mr. Schilling and roughly two dozen other Tea Party-backed Republican freshmen who now find themselves in districts where there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, a re-election campaign is a remarkably tricky task.

They are the subject of constant attack ads, assailing them for votes on a budget that would change the Medicare system, accusing them of trying to curtail protections for women and criticizing their support for earmark bans that could impede local projects. But they are also scrutinized by conservative activists who were crucial to their election and want to make sure they do not stray too far from Tea Party orthodoxy in pursuit of a second term.

Republican freshmen like Chip Cravaack of Minnesota, Robert Dold of Illinois and Ann Marie Buerkle of New York are among those eager to prove that they are more than flukes who rode in on a wave only to paddle back out to the sea of one-termers.

It is one thing to run as an outsider taking aim at Washington dysfunction; when you are the incumbent, with Congressional license plates and a voting record for all to see, it is a whole new ballgame.

“Here’s the problem,” Mr. Schilling said. Colleagues in highly Republican districts “put up bills that make them look tough back home,” he said, “and that makes for tough votes.”

He recalled another freshman lawmaker, from a safe district in Indiana, who criticized him for “voting like a Democrat.” “I said, ‘I’ve got to vote my district, thank you very much!’ ” said Mr. Schilling, who punctuates most of his sentences with a blinding smile, a hearty laugh and “Oh, my goodness!”

Nice try, local Democrats say. “He is out of step with the district,” said Steve Brown, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Illinois. “I don’t know what he puts forth to voters that would make them retain him.” Mr. Brown said Mr. Schilling’s challenger, Cheri Bustos, a onetime alderwoman from East Moline and former baby sitter to Mr. Durbin’s children, would return the district to the Democrats.

In recent months, in part to curry favor with crucial independent voters who wish for more comity in Congress, some freshmen in closely contested districts have worked to be more bipartisan. They have spoken out against their party’s bill for long-term transportation funding and voted for measures that they had originally campaigned against.

“When it came to the debt ceiling vote, I once said, ‘Oh, I’d never do one of those,’ ” Mr. Schilling said. “But when you came down to the reality of what would happen if we didn’t, and I talked to local businesses about that,” the need to vote yes became clear, he said.

At a series of public stops on Monday, he bragged repeatedly about his work with Representative Dave Loebsack, Democrat of Iowa, to pester Illinois for money to fix the aforementioned bridge, which links their states and districts.

But Mr. Schilling and other Republicans, perhaps believing that their message will be embraced by swing voters worried about the budget deficit, still dish out plenty of tough talk against Democratic lawmakers and President Obama.

“They are very anti-capitalist,” Mr. Schilling told a dozen female Republican volunteers, who call themselves the Old Glories because all are over 70, during a recess trip home. Responding to one woman who asked whether he thought Mr. Obama had campaigned in 2008 with a strategy “to make America fail,” Mr. Schilling said of the slow economic recovery, “A lot of people think this is being done on purpose.”

View the original article here

Obama, party allies raise $68 million for re-election (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and its Democratic allies raised more than $68 million in the last three months of 2011, dwarfing Republican rivals as the White House race approaches.

In a video message sent to supporters on Thursday, Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina announced the haul, which brings the shared fundraising by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee at over $200 million for 2011.

With most of that money said to be coming in small-dollar sums from thousands of Americans, the fundraising gives Obama, a Democrat, a nice cushion as he campaigns for re-election against Republicans sparring to see who will be their nominee in November's election.

Although the money given to the DNC is effectively Obama's for grabs, his own campaign -- which faces lower contribution limits -- received $42 million during the last three months of 2011.

Still, that far outstrips the amounts donated to the Republican campaigns, which do not yet receive financial backing from the Republican National Committee.

Front-runner Mitt Romney's campaign said on Wednesday it had raised $24 million in the fourth quarter. Ron Paul raised $13 million and Newt Gingrich raised $9 million.

The Obama team is shooting to top the roughly $750 million it raised when he was elected president in 2008.

Much of Obama's success in 2008 was credited to his grassroots support illustrated by small donations, which Messina said continue to flow. Similar to the previous quarterly report, 98 percent of the donations to Obama's campaign were made up of $250 or less, he said.

In the video, Messina again rejected the expectation that the campaign would raise $1 billion. That false expectation, he said, was giving donors the misimpression Obama did not need their financial support.

"Too many Obama supporters think we don't need their money, or they don't need to give now," he said in the video.

"We won in 2008 because every single supporter and volunteer viewed their role in this campaign as absolutely essential to us winning. But now we're in danger of letting that very belief slip through our fingers this time."

One major campaign donor highlighted the financial challenge Obama faces from "Super PACs," the groups that technically cannot directly communicate with campaigns but can accept unlimited donations in support of a candidate.

"The race is going to be expensive. The fact is that there are these unlimited buckets of (Republican) PAC money," he said.

"The Obama campaign is going to need money from here for the duration. And once (the Republicans) have a nominee, that's when it starts getting expensive."

Some 1.3 million Americans gave to Obama's campaign last year, including 583,000 donors in the fourth quarter alone. Of those, almost a third were first-time donors, Messina said.

The campaign beat its goal of raising $60 million in the fourth quarter, although the amount brought in was just under $70 million raised in the third quarter. Through the end of September, the campaign and the DNC had raised roughly $155 million.

Messina's email to supporters asked them to chip in $25 now; often Obama fundraising appeals start with a much lower $3 donation request.

The campaigns have until Jan 31 to release their full fourth quarter reports.

(additional reporting by Eric Johnson in Chicago and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Philip Barbara)

View the original article here

5 Reasons Kentucky Democrat Win Boosts Obama Re-Election Chances (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a huge boost on Election Day 2011, as Kentucky Democratic Gov. Stephen Beshear coasted to an easy re-election, defeating a veteran Republican politician and a frequent independent candidate by a wide margin. This is good news for Obama for several reasons.

First, as Kentucky goes, so goes the Democratic Party's chances in the next election. Democrat Brereton Jones won his gubernatorial race in 1991, a year before Bill Clinton prevailed in 1992. Democrat Paul Patton's close victory in 1995 preceded Bill Clinton's successful re-election. Patton was re-elected in 1999, a year before the 2000 election. Yeah, Al Gore didn't win the contest against George W. Bush, but he won the popular vote.

Patton's scandal hurt the Democrat nominee Ben Chandler. He lost to Republican Ernie Fletcher in 2003, a year before Bush was re-elected. Then Beshear thumped Fletcher in 2007, a year before Barack Obama's historic win.

Of course, the state doesn't always go Democratic in the presidential elections. But if Republicans have to work to win it, that's less money for another state winds up flipping to the Democrats.

Second, four states that voted against Obama in 2008 held elections in 2011. Democrats won two of them: Kentucky and West Virginia. That doesn't bode well for Republicans. And, if you think about it, the other two states that picked the GOP (Louisiana, Mississippi) often go against presidential election trends over the same time frame.

In fact, given the showings in Louisiana and Mississippi, the Democrats should be scolded for being less effective in those states. Wins by Beshear in Kentucky and Tomblin in West Virginia demonstrate that being in a red state is no excuse. Other Southern state Democratic parties should take heed.

Third, Kentucky isn't some oasis of growth in a sea of slow recovery. In fact, Kentucky is a bit behind the curve when it comes to hiring. So it wasn't some rosy recovery scenario that gave Beshear another term in office.

Fourth, it isn't like Stephen Beshear was some political superman. The former Attorney General and Lt. Governor lost a gubernatorial primary in 1987. Senator Mitch McConnell thumped him in 1996 in an otherwise good year for Democrats. His victory in the 2007 primary was considered a shocker. As for the Republicans, David Williams was a veteran politician, and the state senate president. Williams' running mate Richie Farmer was a University of Kentucky basketball star. They should have done much better than this.

Fifth, it was a win for all Kentucky Democrats, as they won plenty of down-ticket races. Beshear's victory alone should unnerve Republicans. His margin of victory and the Democratic Party sweep shows that the GOP has its work cut out for them. They could ignore the contest, like they did in West Virginia. But history shows that it is a bad sign for Republicans next year.

John A. Tures is an associate professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Ga.

View the original article here