Google Search

Showing posts with label state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Ethics a focus for 7 remaining California secretary of state candidates

Sen. Leland Yee State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) quit the race for California secretary of state after his arrest last month. Above, Yee faces reporters after a court appearance. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images / March 31, 2014)

SACRAMENTO — The arrest of a front-runner in the race for California secretary of state on corruption charges has made ethics a key issue for the seven candidates still in the contest.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) quit the race after his arrest last month on charges of taking payments in exchange for official favors and conspiring to illegally traffic in firearms. He has pleaded not guilty.

As the remaining candidates focus on the best way to clean up Sacramento, Yee's stumble has thrown the June primary competition wide open.

AT A GLANCE: Candidates for secretary of state

Yee, whose name will remain on the ballot, was the second-best-financed candidate for the state's top elections job. The contestant with the most money, state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), is favored to grab at least one of the two runoff slots for November.

"With Yee out of the picture, it definitely opens up the race more to the other candidates," said Tony Quinn, an editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which handicaps political races.

A recent Field Poll showed Padilla running second to Republican public policy specialist Pete Peterson, whose last quarterly disclosure report showed less than $2,000 in his campaign fund.

The secretary of state, with nearly 500 employees, oversees federal and state elections in California, maintains the public databases that disclose campaign contributions and lobbyist spending, and processes and maintains records related to corporations and other business entities.

Incumbent Debra Bowen, a Democrat, is prevented by term limits from running for reelection.

Besides Padilla, the other Democrats in the race are Derek Cressman, former vice president of the watchdog group Common Cause, and Jeffrey H. Drobman, a computer scientist and engineer.

There are two Republican candidates: Roy Allmond, a program technician in the secretary of state's office, and Peterson, executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership, a think tank at Pepperdine University.

David Curtis, a designer in an architectural studio, is a Green Party candidate. Dan Schnur, on leave as director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, is a "no party preference" candidate.

Padilla has a large advantage in campaign fundraising, having brought in $1.6 million, according to his required filings with the state. Cressman is a distant second in campaign cash, having raised $390,000 and lent himself $100,000.

All of the candidates say the state must upgrade the computer systems that register businesses and tell the public who contributes money to which politicians.

But they have clashed over what to do about the apparent prevalence of corruption in the Capitol as well as over how to handle Yee and Democratic Sens. Ronald S. Calderon and Roderick Wright, who are facing their own criminal charges.

Cressman and Schnur have criticized Padilla for voting last month to impose paid suspensions on the three. Schnur and Cressman said they should have been permanently expelled.

In voting for suspensions, Padilla noted that Yee and Calderon have not yet had their day in court. But he has called on all three lawmakers to resign.

As he has campaigned for secretary of state, Padilla has proposed a blackout on political fundraising for more than three months during the end of each legislative session. That's when special interests seeking favorable votes on bills also flood legislators with campaign cash. The Legislature has not yet voted on his proposal.

Like most lawmakers, Padilla, 41, said fundraising has nothing to do with how he votes on bills.

"But the public perception has gotten to the point where it needs to be addressed," he said. "The perception is that fundraising activity has an undue influence on how decisions are made in the Capitol."


View the original article here

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Tough politician left modest state legacy

(PNI) Becoming head of the California university system probably brings an end to Janet Napolitano's career as an Arizona politician.

It's been an odd story. Napolitano dominated her political party more than any other state politician in the modern era. At the zenith of her power, in 2006 and 2007, she defined the center of Arizona politics. Yet, today, there's not a trace of her influence or legacy. It's as though she never was governor.

Napolitano was barely elected governor in 2002, with the second-lowest percentage of the vote (46percent) in Arizona history. In 2006, she was re-elected in a stunning victory that defied the laws of political physics.

In 2002, Napolitano owed her victory to Pima County. She lost the balance of the state and carried a bare majority of the counties. She lost Republican-dominated Maricopa County by 25,000 votes.

In 2006, Napolitano won with 63percent of the vote, the largest margin for a gubernatorial candidate since Bruce Babbitt's re-election victory in 1982. She carried all 15 counties. She won Maricopa County by more than 200,000 votes.

Her opponent in that race, Len Munsil, was relatively unknown and didn't have enough money to really make a game of it. But Munsil was no slouch, and even a better known and financed opponent would have gotten trounced. At that time, Napolitano was a comfortable fit for the Arizona body politic.

Before Napolitano, the Arizona Democratic Party was still feeling the reverberations of the rivalry between Babbitt and former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini. The rivalry was never destructive, and by the time Napolitano was elected governor, both had been out of elected office for quite a while. But Democratic politicians were still frequently known as being from the Babbitt or DeConcini camps.

Napolitano superseded all that. Helped by party Chairman Jim Pederson's largesse, she dominated the state Democratic Party and had no rival. She was the unquestioned and unchallenged queen bee.

She also mastered the Republican Arizona Legislature. During her first term, state general fund spending increased nearly 70percent. Three consecutive years, the increase was more than 15percent. And for the most part, legislative Republicans voted for those budgets. She also vetoed more bills than any governor in Arizona history, 58 in one year alone.

The spending spree was fueled by housing-bubble-related revenue. The bottom was falling out about the time Napolitano was splitting for Washington, D.C., to become President Obama's Homeland Security secretary.

I give Napolitano a pass on her tenure at Homeland Security. The agency shouldn't exist. It's too big to be effective or effectively managed. It had to drive Napolitano, who was a bit of a control freak while governor, nuts on occasion. On the other hand, it was probably good training for overseeing large universities, which are also generally unmanageable.

Back in Arizona, all of Napolitano's gains were erased by the fiscal tsunami that hit state revenue. State spending remains well below the Napolitano peaks. Her signature reform, state-paid all-day kindergarten, has been repealed.

Nor did Napolitano leave a political legacy. She never did have coattails. No Democrat won a statewide race in 2010 or 2012. In fact, today, for the first time in Arizona history, there is not a single Democrat holding statewide elected office. And no Democratic politicians are thought of as from the Napolitano camp.

The last Democrat elected to the governorship before Napolitano, Babbitt, never dominated state politics the way she did. He didn't try. He took a largely hands-off approach to the Republican-controlled Legislature, monitoring it rather than trying to master it.

Instead, Babbitt concentrated on getting a few things done of importance to him. The state is still guided today by two of his legacy projects: the groundwater law and the urban lands act.

All that's left of the Napolitano governorship, despite her extraordinary political dominance, is a portrait on a wall.

Reach Robb at robert.robb @arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2013 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

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Burnside's Police State

DisunionDisunion follows the Civil War as it unfolded.

Near dawn on March 24, 1863, Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside stepped off a train in Cincinnati. The tall, bald, magnificently bewhiskered soldier arrived from Washington to take command of the Army’s Department of the Ohio, an enormous command that encompassed Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and most of Kentucky. His orders from the War Department were to collect troops and prepare to lead an invasion of eastern Tennessee. In the meantime, though, he also had to deal with the roiling antiwar politics of the Ohio Valley.

Burnside’s new billet offered redemption after failure at the head of the Army of the Potomac during the winter. The general had led the disastrous assaults on entrenched Confederate troops at Fredericksburg, Va., in December. Later, the “Mud March” fiasco, a failed attempt at a winter campaign, prompted feuding among the Army of the Potomac’s top commanders. President Abraham Lincoln finally removed him in late January 1863. But Lincoln liked the unassuming and sincere Indiana native and wanted him to have an active command. This new assignment was another chance to serve his country.

Gen. Ambrose BurnsideLibrary of Congress Gen. Ambrose Burnside

Burnside replaced Brig. Gen. Horatio G. Wright, who had commanded the Department of the Ohio since its formation in August 1862. Wright remained in Cincinnati for several days to ease the new man into command and teach him the lay of the land. The threat of a springtime Confederate invasion of Kentucky loomed, and the defense of the commonwealth took priority over offensive plans. More to the point, the restive states north of the Ohio River had to be quieted. Burnside learned from Wright that Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were cauldrons of violent resistance to the federal government.

Just as galling to these soldiers, anti-administration speech throughout the region was commonplace. Democratic speakers and newspapers heaped torrents of abuse on Lincoln, his policies and his generals. The Emancipation Proclamation continued to be a lightning rod for protest. The constant abuse, many officers and enlisted men believed, encouraged desertion and seriously weakened the armies in the field.

To put an end to it, Burnside had a solution. Three weeks after arriving in Cincinnati, on April 13, he announced General Orders 38, applying military authority to the regulation of all speech and publication in the department. “It must be distinctly understood,” he declared, “that treason expressed or implied will not be tolerated.”

Burnside’s order reflected the sentiments of many soldiers who blamed partisan — i.e., Democratic — speech for prolonging the war. Days before the order appeared, Brig. Gen. Jacob D. Cox, commander of the District of Ohio, noted in a speech that soldiers believed “that these enemies at home are more dangerous than those they meet in the field.” As Burnside himself publicly explained, his order was a declaration of military superiority over civil government in combatting disloyalty and policing the home front. “I am probably invested with a little more power than the majority of you in suppressing anything like treason, and acts that tend to create dissention.”

Burnside’s military edict against treasonous speech was only the latest military measure to fight the growing problem of resistance to the government in the North. Wright, his predecessor, had created a spy bureau made up of civilian detectives and soldiers detailed to roam the landscape and sniff out disloyalty and conspiracy. His Army detectives spied on groups who aided deserters and vowed resistance to the newly passed Enrollment Act. They also reported on sales of arms and ammunition to groups deemed disloyal and bent on violence. Wright also instituted a department-wide ban on the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to keep guns out of the hands of traitors.

General Orders 38 met with widespread approval from Republicans who dearly wished to muzzle their political foes. Troops applauded the measure, none more so than Brig. Gen. Milo S. Hascall, commander of the District of Indiana, who promulgated (with Burnside’s approval) a similar order specifically for his state. “All newspapers and public speakers that counsel or encourage resistance to the Conscription Act, or any other law of Congress passed as a war measure, or that endeavor to bring the war policy of the Government into disrepute,” would, he warned, be deemed violators of the order.

While Republicans cheered the orders, Democrats scolded the generals for unconstitutional infringements of the freedoms of speech and the press. Several Indiana Democratic editors mockingly wondered what Burnside meant by “implied treason.” In May, Hascall proceeded to arrest editors, shutter several newspapers and threaten others in his state as a demonstration of the term’s meaning. Many Democratic speakers and newspaper editors held their tongues lest they be arrested and imprisoned by the Army.

Democratic indignation soared. Many Democrats soon braved the threat of arrest and boldly criticized Burnside’s military edict. Speakers and editors lambasted the order as tyrannical, unconstitutional and merely the latest Lincoln administration travesty. The order quickly came to have the opposite effect from what Burnside had hoped: far from stifling dissent, Burnside’s order provided a rallying cry for antiwar partisans. Rallies throughout the region brought out thousands of energized Democrats.

One Democratic politician appears to have used his party’s reaction to Burnside’s edict to revive his political fortunes. Former Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio, defeated in his 1862 congressional race, had plans to run for governor in the fall of 1863. He tapped Democratic anger and attacked General Orders 38 in public speeches. Army officers dressed in civilian clothes recorded one of his speeches. Shortly afterward, troops surrounded Vallandigham’s Dayton house and battered down his door; they arrested him and hauled him away to headquarters in Cincinnati. Burnside promptly tried him by military commission for violation of the order. While Dayton dissolved in riot and half its downtown burned, the tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to military imprisonment, which Lincoln changed to exile in the Confederacy. Vallandigham’s arrest made him a martyr in the eyes of Ohio Democrats, who nominated him as their candidate for governor.

Fort Sumter

Explore multimedia from the series and navigate through past posts, as well as photos and articles from the Times archive.

While most Republicans took delight in military punishment for Democratic speech, one important Republican acted behind the scenes to put an end to Burnside’s order. From the outset, Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton perceived both that enforcing the order was impractical and that Democrats gained more from it politically than Republicans. The month before he had disposed of the dangerous problem raised by the military arrest of a sitting Illinois Democratic judge, Charles H. Constable. The generals by their heavy-handed tactics were again interfering with political matters for which they had little aptitude. He traveled to Washington and lobbied the Lincoln administration to remove both Burnside and Hascall. He failed to have Burnside canned, but the War Department soon replaced Hascall.

Morton’s intervention with national authorities brought an end to Burnside’s policy of military arrests for speech. At the beginning of the military commission trial of a Democratic Indiana state senator arrested for disloyal speech, a messenger from Morton informed Burnside that the president and his cabinet disapproved of Burnside’s arrest of Vallandigham and the Army’s interference in political matters. Rattled by this startling news, Burnside telegraphed the president to offer his resignation, which Lincoln tersely declined, saying that the arrest had been foolish but the Cabinet would back him. The general promptly ended the policy of arrests and trials for disloyal speech, even freeing the Indiana state senator after the commission found him guilty.

While he discontinued arrests for speech, Burnside still aimed to silence critics. On June 1, he ordered the shutdown of The Chicago Times, the leading antiwar Democratic newspaper in the West. Reacting to Democratic clamor and protests from prominent Republicans, Lincoln initially ordered Burnside to rescind the order. But other Republicans who approved of Burnside’s move intervened, prompting Lincoln to waffle. He flip-flopped and ordered Burnside to keep the paper under lock and key. His message arrived too late. Burnside had already lifted the suppression order. While the general did not rescind General Orders 38, the suppression of The Chicago Times was to be his last major attempt to curb Democratic opposition in the Department of the Ohio.

Burnside blamed Governor Morton for the demise of his program for rigorous military intervention into civil affairs, one of the most notorious efforts to suppress speech and press freedoms in American history. “The civil law is too slow,” he groused privately. The general, who saw himself as supreme military governor over five states, greater than a mere state governor, believed the power of the Army should be employed to quell dissent. But the capable Indiana executive prevailed and kept the general at bay. In July, Morton again skillfully deflected Burnside’s efforts to declare martial law in Indiana during an extensive Confederate raid across the region.

In angry frustration, Burnside’s staff officers turned a portrait of the governor that hung in their Cincinnati headquarters upside down. The irony of their symbolic protest appears to have escaped them.

Follow Disunion at twitter.com/NYTcivilwar or join us on Facebook.

Sources: William Marvel, “Burnside”; Craig D. Tenney, “To Suppress or Not to Suppress: Abraham Lincoln and the Chicago Times,” Civil War History 27 (September, 1981); Stephen E. Towne, “Killing the Serpent Speedily: Governor Morton, General Hascall, and the Suppression of the Democratic Press in Indiana, 1863,” Civil War History 52 (March, 2006); Stephen E. Towne, “Worse than Vallandigham: Governor Oliver P. Morton, Lambdin P. Milligan, and the Military Arrest and Trial of Indiana State Senator Alexander J. Douglas during the Civil War,” Indiana Magazine of History 106 (March, 2010).

 Stephen E. Towne

Stephen E. Towne is an associate university archivist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the editor of “A Fierce, Wild Joy: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Edward J. Wood, 48th Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regiment.”


View the original article here

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Obama nominates Kerry for State post

President Barack Obama has picked Sen. John Kerry for secretary of state, hailing him as an extraordinary lawmaker who has played a central part in every major foreign policy debate of the past 30 years.

Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and decorated Vietnam veteran, would replace Hillary Rodham Clinton if he's confirmed by his fellow senators.

"Today, I'm looking ahead to my second term, and I'm very proud to announce my choice for America's next secretary of state, John Kerry," Obama said. The president added: "Over the years, John has earned the respect and confidence of leaders around the world. He is not going to need a lot of on-the-job training."

Kerry's path to the nomination cleared last week when another candidate -- United Nations ambassador Susan Rice -- announced she would not pursue the post. Kerry, who turned 69 this month, has had a lifelong involvement in foreign issues. The son of a foreign service officer, Kerry fought in Vietnam and later became a leader of a veterans group that opposed the war.

Elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1982, Kerry won his first U.S. Senate race two years later and is currently in his fifth term. He secured the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2004 but lost the general election to incumbent President George W. Bush. During his Senate years, Kerry opposed U.S. assistance to Nicaraguan rebels during the 1980s and criticized the Iraq war during his 2004 presidential bid against Bush.

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

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Obama to state his case

President Barack Obama finds himself in a delicate position as Democrats descend on Charlotte, N.C., for their party's national convention.

He must build his case for a second term amid continuing economic anxiety, reminding Americans how bad things were when he took office in January 2009 and arguing that the situation could again deteriorate if he loses the White House.

But even the most effective argument from the president may not immediately be reflected in public-opinion polls despite the extensive media coverage planned for this week's three-day Democratic convention, which begins Tuesday and runs through Thursday.

Such events rarely provide as much of a boost in the polls for presidents as they do for their challengers, simply because Americans already have well-formed opinions of their chief executives after four years in office.

Obama's job-approval rating stood at 45 percent as the Republican National Convention got under way in Tampa on Monday. Only one president -- Republican George W. Bush in 2004 -- has won re-election with an approval number below 50 percent.

Obama cannot rest his case on accomplishments such as the 2011 killing of international terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Historically, the economy has been key in determining a first-term president's fate, and the slow post-recession progress is a challenge for him.

In Charlotte, Democrats are expected to keep the heat on Obama's Republican opponents, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his vice- presidential running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a ticket that Democrats have tried to paint as extreme on issues such as Medicare reform and immigration. And, in an attempt to change the conversation from the economy, Democrats likely will highlight contrasts with the GOP platform on social issues such as abortion rights, which Republicans oppose.

"Remember, President Obama inherited the largest set of problems at once of any president since FDR," said Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman and a Florida congresswoman. "The economy was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month when he took office. And now, after almost four years of his policies, including the recovery act, which saved those teacher and first-responder jobs and created new green-energy jobs, we've had 29 straight months of job growth in the private sector. We've begun to turn things around."

The Romney-Ryan ticket offers a return to "the snake oil that never worked when the Republicans tried it," Wasserman Schultz told The Arizona Republic, as well as to policies that Democrats blame for bringing about "the worst economic crisis that any of us living today have ever faced."

So far, voters are not convinced. National polls released ahead of last week's GOP convention showed the presidential race deadlocked. Some had Romney with leads within the surveys' margins of error.

"The economy isn't good enough for the president to break out, but it's not bad enough for Romney to seize the lead," said John J. "Jack" Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California. "So it's not surprising that they are running roughly even. It's unlikely that there will be such a big (economic) surge that the president will be able to coast."

The late-summer political conventions, where the major parties' candidates are officially nominated, and Labor Day mark the traditional point at which many undecided and independent voters start paying attention to the presidential race. Romney accepted the GOP nomination last week at a convention featuring themes such as "We Can Do Better" and "We Can Change It."

This week's Democratic convention in North Carolina, a swing state that Obama carried in 2008, "will be the most open and accessible and inclusive national convention that's ever been held in history" and will provide clear contrasts with the Republicans on diversity and other issues, Wasserman Schultz said.

Obama will deliver his nomination acceptance speech Thursday in front of an anticipated crowd of thousands at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte.

San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will become the first Hispanic to deliver the keynote address at a Democratic convention. Other featured speakers include former President Bill Clinton, actress Eva Longoria, convention chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, 2004 presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School graduate whose advocacy for contraception coverage earned her scorn -- and an apology -- from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican turned independent who endorsed Obama last month, also is expected to appear.

Charlotte is expecting 35,000 visitors, including Arizona Democrats such as U.S. Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor; Arizona Corporation Commissioner Sandra Kennedy; Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton; Phoenix City Councilmen Michael Johnson and Michael Nowakowski; Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox; state Sen. David Schapira; state Reps. Ruben Gallego and Anna Tovar; and Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris.

There also has been speculation that former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords might show up. Mark Kelly, Giffords' retired astronaut husband, said in April that an appearance was possible if her rehabilitation regimen allowed for the trip to North Carolina. Giffords resigned Jan. 25 to focus on her recovery from a gunshot wound to the head that she suffered in a 2011 assassination attempt.

Richard Carmona, the former U.S. surgeon general who is running against U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., for Arizona's open U.S. Senate seat, is campaigning in Arizona this week and will not attend the convention. Carmona, a former independent, entered the Senate race as a Democrat at the urging of Obama and other senior national Democrats.

Acknowledging that the economy is a concern, Grijalva said he hopes the convention conveys a tone and message that Obama and Democrats are serious about issues facing the nation. He said it's unfair for Republicans to blame the last few years on Obama and Vice President Joe Biden when Congress failed to take more aggressive action on the recovery. Republicans regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections.

"The fingers are being pointed at Democrats. This is an opportunity to point them back," Grijalva said.

Pastor, the senior member of Arizona's U.S. House delegation, also said he believes Obama can ultimately sway voters on the economy.

"He's arguing that the hole that he inherited in terms of the economy was pretty deep, but that we're slowly getting out of it," Pastor said. "He's holding his own."

But Pastor also said he hopes the Democrats will use the convention to continue to press Republicans on social issues such as abortion and gay rights following the furor over comments about rape made by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, an anti-abortion Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Missouri. Akin sparked outrage by claiming that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy because women's bodies respond in a way that stops it.

"Keep Todd Akin on TV," Pastor said. "What's happening in Missouri sure as hell isn't going to endear a lot of women to their cause. And their (tough-on- illegal-immigration) platform isn't going to endear a lot of Hispanics to the Republican ticket. Medicare is still going to play, and we'll just keep pounding away."

However, one political observer said the Democratic convention runs the risk of coming across as "boring," given that the party is so solidly behind Obama and there is no trace of party infighting or conflict. In addition to continuing to define Romney in a way that drives up the Republican's negative numbers and lay out a plan for his second term, Obama also needs to keep his troops fired up for the battle ahead, said Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of NDN, a left-of-center think tank in Washington, D.C. The Republican convention, against the backdrop of a hurricane, provided more drama.

"The question is whether the boringness and the togetherness of the Democratic Party right now, which is not a typical situation, is going to be a problem in itself," Rosenberg said. "Where's the excitement going to come from in this convention? ? You could make the argument that Obama has done a good job at keeping this diverse coalition together."

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

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

State Senator Adriano Espaillat Runs for the House on Pride and Energy

Tired?

“Nah, I’m feeling good,” he said. “I just had a Power Bar.”

Mr. Espaillat, a Democratic state senator from Washington Heights, was on the last leg of a day that began inside an uptown subway station, asking commuters escaping the rain for their votes. He snatched a quick breakfast (a bagel with cream cheese and lox), shot downtown for a meeting, rode up to Albany while making campaign calls, and met lobbyists and legislators at the Capitol before returning to New York City to speak to constituents and check in at his office.

It is this combustible pace that Mr. Espaillat, 57, has been trying to sell as his greatest advantage over the four-decade incumbent, Representative Charles B. Rangel, in next week’s Democratic primary for Congress.

While Mr. Rangel, 82, has been arriving at campaign stops with the help of a walker and maintaining a relatively relaxed schedule, Mr. Espaillat has been feverishly bouncing around the Upper Manhattan and Bronx district, articulating a vision that focuses heavily on immigration reform, job creation, affordable housing and access to higher education.

“I’m going to bring a fresh new view and voice to the 13th Congressional District that I think is entirely needed,” Mr. Espaillat said. “New ideas, new energy.”

Mr. Espaillat, who is seeking to become the first Dominican-born congressman and expresses unabashed ethnic pride, is widely seen as Mr. Rangel’s most serious challenger since he won office in 1970 because the district is, for the first time, a majority Hispanic.

Until recently, Mr. Espaillat had avoided sharply criticizing Mr. Rangel in public. But during a televised debate with Mr. Rangel and the three other candidates last week, Mr. Espaillat took aim at the ethics charges that led to Mr. Rangel’s censure two years ago.

“As a result of that, we lost 60 Democratic seats in the Congress, and the Tea Party radicals invaded Congress and are pushing back on Obama,” Mr. Espaillat said. “So he became the poster child for dysfunction in Washington.”

Mr. Espaillat’s critics have accused him of overzealous campaign tactics. Moises Perez, Mr. Rangel’s campaign manager, said supporters of Mr. Espaillat had branded Mr. Perez and other Dominicans supporting Mr. Rangel as traitors. “That’s a very heavy-handed style of campaigning that turns people off,” Mr. Perez said.

And last month, Mr. Espaillat said he would not refuse the support of an anti-incumbent “super PAC” that is mostly funded by businessmen who back conservative causes. Asked to explain his position last week, Mr. Espaillat offered a different stance: he said he was “rejecting any super PACs from getting involved in this campaign.”

With a public-service career that started as a community organizer and crime victims’ rights advocate in Washington Heights, Mr. Espaillat has long held high political ambitions. He often invokes personal experiences when advocating for a cause or bill, supporters say.

“When he locks into an issue, he locks into an issue and he doesn’t let go until he gets resolution,” said Senator José Peralta, a Democrat of Queens.

Assemblyman Phil Ramos, a Democrat from Long Island, said that Mr. Espaillat taught him the art of compromise.

“He said that, as an elected official, if we can win 80 percent of what we want, then next year we live to fight for only 20 percent,” Mr. Ramos recalled. But if you “go for 100 percent, the end result could be that our community ends up with nothing.”

Mr. Espaillat says he is a descendant of one of the Dominican Republic’s most notable political figures — Ulises Francisco Espaillat, who held the presidency for about five months in 1876.

The family moved to Washington Heights in 1964, when Mr. Espaillat was 9, and one of the first things he did on American soil was to touch the snow on the airport tarmac. His father purchased a gas station in East New York, Brooklyn, where Mr. Espaillat helped out.

Mr. Espaillat was introduced to politics through a summer youth program run by a Baptist preacher. After graduating from Queens College, he worked in criminal justice, first for the city and then as a liaison between his community and the police.

“I remember Adriano walking up on the corner and talking to gang members and telling them to stop doing what they were doing,” said Roberto Lizardo, who worked closely in community activism with Mr. Espaillat.

Mr. Espaillat lost two races for City Council; the second, in 1991, was won by Guillermo Linares, who became New York’s first Dominican-born elected official. In 1996, he won election to the Assembly, and became the first Dominican to hold office in Albany; he was elected to the State Senate in 2010.

Mr. Espaillat, who dances bachata and merengue, decorated his Albany office with paintings from the Dominican Republic, including one of a twin-steeple church in Santiago and another of a broad-shouldered marchanta balancing a basket of flowers on her head. Two glittery, horned Carnival masks that Mr. Espaillat made hang from a wood-paneled wall.

He has been “very aggressive about Dominican pride, very aggressive about furthering the Dominican people, very aggressive about putting a focus on making sure that Dominicans get their fair share,” said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, who has endorsed Mr. Rangel.

He also became a die-hard Yankees fan; so much so that years later, as a lawmaker, he put on a Yankees hat and professed his love for the team while he and other legislators were presenting a Mets player with an award.

Gregarious and blunt, Mr. Espaillat balances his days of nonstop politicking with levity.“How come you’re looking sad today?” Mr. Espaillat sang at a tollbooth agent (he refuses to get an EZ Pass).

There were also quiet moments, like when Mr. Espaillat made the sign of the cross when he got behind the wheel, or when he mumbled a song coming from the radio: “In the midnight hour, she cries more, more, more.”


View the original article here

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Besides the Hats, What Good Are State Conventions?

Are political conventions necessary?

Texas Democrats are in Houston for their state convention. Texas Republicans are in Fort Worth for the same thing. The Libertarians are meeting this weekend near DFW Airport, and the Green Party is having its convention outside San Antonio.

It’s actually easier to make the convention case for the Libertarians and the Greens, who use their gatherings to put people on the ballot, because they don’t hold primary elections.

The two major parties, on the other hand, held their primaries on May 29 and will sort out the remaining 37 contests in runoffs on July 31. The conventioneers don’t have anything to do with that, except when they vote back home.

They are at their conventions to elect the officers of their party and the executive committee members who meet periodically to handle party business, as well as to pick the delegates and others who will get passes and floor and voting rights at the national conventions this summer. Whether those conventions are still necessary is another open question, but this is about the state contests.

How many people need to be at these gatherings?

Is this a scam invented by the state’s convention and visitors bureaus and the rest of the travel industry?

Is it meant just to get some publicity for the parties and candidates? To get the party faithful enthused for the remaining five months of the political season? To make money?

And, as a selfish and personal side note, how is it that both of the political parties landed their conventions in the only two places in Texas with Major League Baseball teams, on a weekend when the Astros and the Rangers are, respectively, in Chicago and San Francisco? Do the teams know something we don’t? Do the planners want everyone to concentrate and avoid sports and other amusements?

State conventions don’t usually make news — other than the perfunctory official business stories — unless candidates say amazing things or partisans get into arguments.

Texas Democrats have historically made news with their intramural fights, where two caucuses take opposite positions and put everyone else in the party on edge, or when two or more groups contend to represent the same part of the party.

Texas Republicans almost always make news with their platform, which is full of specific programs and planks that spook candidates and other Republicans alike.

The Democrats have a long list of weird caucuses. The Republicans fly their colors in their platform. These are conventions, after all, for the most Republican Republicans and the most Democratic Democrats. They are fervent, like ham radio operators or model rocketeers, quilters or comic book collectors.

The conventions rally the faithful. Like those various and numerous rabid hobbyists, political people find comfort with members of their own herd. It’s not appropriate in most other settings to put on that vest with 57 different campaign buttons, that bowler with the red, white and blue sequins, or the old Ross Perot T-shirt.

And the conventions do give the partisans a chance to see many of the people on their ticket, like them or not. But not the big dogs: Mitt Romney didn’t schedule a visit to the Republican convention in Fort Worth. President Obama wasn’t planning a stop in Houston.

Unless they’re looking for money, presidential candidates from both parties ignore us, assuming that the state will hand its electoral votes to whatever Republican gets the nomination. That’s been a safe bet for more than 30 years.

These can be risky places even for the locals. On Thursday, the crowd at the Republican convention roared with boos when Gov. Rick Perry reasserted his support for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, now a United States Senate candidate.

Tough crowd.

Soon, they’ll be gone. The Fort Worth Convention Center will get ready for real estate asset managers and then for a gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Houston’s George R. Brown Convention Center will get the State Bar and then a gun and knife show.

The delegates, energized and/or exhausted, will pack up the vests and funny hats and get to work on elections, safe in the knowledge that they are a part of something bigger than themselves.


View the original article here

Monday, April 23, 2012

Democratic Party chair sees chance to make state better

Arizona Democrats selected Bill Roe as party chairman last weekend by acclamation. The Tucson conservationist has long been active in environmental issues as well as party politics, particularly on the fundraising end. He was a regular presence at meetings last year of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, tracking the panel's work as it redrew the state's political boundaries.

Roe succeeds Andrei Cherny, who resigned as chairman in January to pursue a congressional bid. He inherited a party headquarters that is rebuilding after losing key staff positions (mostly to work on congressional campaigns). The staff has been brought back to near full strength because of the efforts of Executive Director Luis Heredia.

Roe said he wants to invest in research on the party's donors, to better understand how to reach out to them; serve as a coordinator for congressional campaigns; and do the requisite hand-holding of candidates.

He sat down with The Republic last week to talk about his plans for the party as it goes into the 2012 election cycle.

Question: Why did you seek the chairmanship? Did you jump? Or were you pushed?

Answer: I had a long discussion two months ago, and the sense was you don't gain anything by seeking it. Wait and see what people really want. Ann Wallack (Maricopa County Democratic chairwoman) and I talked at some length about what was best for the party right now. There really weren't any other serious candidates. ? We decided for now we would work together as a team through the election.

Q: The news release about your appointment mentioned you're talking about building strong county organizations. Is that akin to (former Democratic National Chairman) Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, where you have stronger organizations at the base?

A: Well, yes. I hadn't thought of it that way. We have organizations in 13 of the 15 counties. (La Paz and Apache are the exceptions.) All of the other counties are very vibrant.

And what's interesting right now is everybody's excited. (T)here is a real palpable air of excitement about the future. The same thing at the state committee meeting. We had a remarkably good turnout. We had way, way over quorum.

We have a strong, unified party. And quite unlike the last couple of elections for party chair, where there was a real dogfight, this was a vote by acclamation. ? Everybody is focused on the opportunities we've got coming up for this November.

Q: What is it that's creating this energy?

A: I think people sense the Republicans have really overreached.

I had an e-mail from somebody I served with on a board. He said, "I'm tempted to admonish that you should be careful what you wish for. But instead congratulations on being chosen to lead the Democratic Party. Although I'm still struggling to be a Republican, I am convinced we must have a more competitive Democratic Party if we're going to overcome our worst political instincts in this state. I hope you can accomplish that."

That is symptomatic of a huge number of phone calls and e-mails that I have gotten, not just from Democrats but from people across the board. They're unhappy.

And I think there's a real sense with redistricting there's an opportunity to make the Legislature better. This huge push by the Republicans, all these bills, whether they be assaults on women and reproductive rights, people, I think they are trying to say it's time to take control back and try and be a normal state again.

Q: What are Arizona's chances of being a battleground state in the presidential election?

A: The president's campaign manager was here a month ago, Jim Messina ? The decision would be made later this spring. It would not be on personalities, it would be entirely data driven.

But he shared with us some polls that are very encouraging. And since then, the polls have gotten better in Arizona. So I am cautiously optimistic the president will play a much larger role than either the president did four years ago or (John) Kerry did eight years ago.

Editor's note: The Republic invited Tom Morrissey to sit down for a similar interview when he was elected GOP chairman in early 2011. The requests went unanswered.

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

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Daniels defends right-to-work in 'State' speech (AP)

INDIANAPOLIS – Gov. Mitch Daniels defended divisive right-to-work legislation that he only recently put his name behind, while asking House Democrats to end their boycott of the measure.

Daniels spent a large amount of his final "State of the State" speech Tuesday night touting the national reputation Indiana has developed over his seven years in office, as well as a modest 2012 legislative agenda ranging from more money victims of the Indiana State Fair stage collapse to a statewide smoking ban.

But he dedicated roughly four minutes of his half-hour speech to explaining his evolution in support of right-to-work this year. Daniels made no mention of the issue in his annual speech last year, and urged lawmakers to hold off lest it derail other legislation like an overhaul of the state's education system.

Indiana could become the first state in more than a decade to approve a ban on private contracts that require workers to pay union fees for representation. Indiana House and Senate Republican leaders have made it their top legislative priority this year, and Daniels has campaigned vigorously for it since announcing last month that he would support it the measure.

Republican lawmakers and guests who filled the House chamber applauded heartily throughout the speech, but House and Senate Democrats largely held their applause.

More than a dozen House Democrats skipped Daniels' speech in a rare move. Democratic House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer said afterward he left it to each lawmaker in his 40-member caucus to decide whether they would attend the speech.

Hundreds of union protesters packed the halls outside the House chamber, booing as Daniels walked in for his speech and chanting "Shame on you!" as he left. The protesters' boos and chants could be heard through the glass panes of the House chamber as he spoke about right-to-work.

Although lawmakers are only five days into the 10-week legislative session, the right-to-work battle in the House has stalled most work. House Democrats ended a three-day boycott over the measure Monday only to stall business again Tuesday following a party-line vote in favor of the labor bill earlier in the day.

In his final annual address to the Legislature, Daniels argued that other states win out in competition for new business because of their right-to-work laws.

"Too often we never get a chance, because a right-to-work law is a requirement. Especially in this poor national economy, a state needs every edge it can get," he said.

But he also took care not to downplay Indiana in a speech that was otherwise laden with plaudits about his work over the last seven years in office. Daniels is term-limited against running for re-election in November.

Toward the end of his right-to-work pitch, Daniels relayed an allegory about two politicians written in 1861. One Democrat and one Republican go to Kentucky to settle a political dispute in a knife fight. At the close of the story, Daniels takes two subtle shots at House Democrats — telling them they should stay in the state as well as in the House chamber.

Indiana House Democrats left the state for five weeks last year to block the right-to-work measure. This year, though they have stalled the still-young 2012 session, they have remained in Indianapolis.

"And we think we have disagreements!" Daniels says. "When we do, I hope we'll keep them not only in state, but also in this chamber, where the people's business is supposed to be settled."

When there are the numbers needed to conduct business, Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma has acted quickly to advance the right-to-work measure. Tuesday's speedy approval of the measure in committee, though, appeared to backfire with another Democratic boycott.

The Legislature's Democratic leaders said Daniels should have used the speech to bring the two parties closer together rather than drive a wedge further between them over the right-to-work bill.

"I was mostly disappointed he missed an opportunity he could have used tonight to bring Democrats and Republicans together he could have used the to bring House and Senate together to talk about how we are really going to serve the needs of Indiana," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson said after the speech.

___

Tom LoBianco can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/tomlobianco


View the original article here

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Democrats win in latest Wisconsin recall. Is state a little less red now? (The Christian Science Monitor)

Republicans in Wisconsin’s Senate will retain their razor-edge margin over Democrats in the wake of a special recall election Tuesday.

Voters allowed two Democratic incumbent senators to retain their seats, meaning Republicans have just a one-vote majority in the Senate, 17 to 16. That's a narrower margin than before this month's spate of recall elections. Expectations are that it will push Gov. Scott Walker (R) toward a legislative agenda that holds greater appeal for Democrats or that is handled more sensitively than the so-called “budget repair billâ€

The reshuffling is expected to make it more difficult for the Republican majority to pass controversial legislation such as stricter restrictions on abortion rights or harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

RECOMMENDED: What Wisconsin says about labor unions' clout in America

An earlier recall election, held Aug. 9, dashed Democrats' hopes of seizing control of the Senate, but it did roll over two Republican seats in their favor. For Republicans, that represented a retrenchment from their gains of the 2010 midterm elections, which swept them into power in both houses of state government and the governor's office.

Both Democratic senators up for recall Tuesday managed double-digit victories. With 95 percent of precincts reporting in District 12 by midnight, Sen. Jim Holperin (D) defeated Kim Simac, a tea party organizer, 55 to 45 percent. In the District 22 race, Sen. Bob Wirch (D) defeated Jonathan Steitz, a corporate attorney, 58 percent to 42 percent, with all precincts reporting.

Senator Wirch’s district represents Kenosha and much of the area in southeast Wisconsin close to the Illinois border. Senator Holperin’s district lies in the northernmost area of the state alongside Green Bay.

Two weeks of recall elections gave both parties an opportunity to declare victory.

In holding their majority, Republicans claimed that voters were less than thrilled to recast votes for state senators they fully supported all along. They also said voters rejected the idea that kicking out their Republican senators served as a de facto referendum on Walker’s legislation, which Democrats portrayed as hostile to public-sector unions and the middle class.

For their part, Democrats claimed they succeeded in creating a Senate that will be less of a rubber stamp for Walker's policies. They also said the closer margin will help to give Democrats their voices back just in time for the 2012 national election cycle.

Telling the Associated Press that Tuesday’s recall election “fundamentally changed the face of power in the Wisconsin legislature,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate suggested that, “at the end of this historic recall effort, Democrats have the momentum.”

Republicans are casting the recall process as “political games” by embittered Democrats, according to Republican Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald. “Democrats need to start working with the other side of the aisle, not just moving on to their next recall target,” Senator Fitzgerald said in a statement released Tuesday.

That next recall target is decided: Walker. Mr. Tate and other Democratic leaders have already said they plan to begin efforts this summer to remove Walker from office when he becomes eligible for recall in 2012.

However, the public’s appetite is small for another recall election of a state official, even though Walker has lost some support.

Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh, N.C., polling firm that often works for Democrats, reported Monday that 50 percent of Wisconsin voters oppose recalling Walker, with 47 percent in favor. The findings reverse those in May, when 47 percent of voters opposed a Walker recall and 50 percent were in support.

Because Walker’s approval ratings have been sliding, the growing opposition to his recall probably has more to do with voter fatigue about the process itself.

Some 53 percent of voters disapprove of Walker’s performance. If a recall election were to take place between the current governor and former US Sen. Russ Feingold (D), Mr. Feingold would be the preferred choice for 52 percent of voters, compared with 45 percent who would vote to keep Walker in office.

In a statement, Public Policy Polling Dean Debnam said “a Scott Walker recall is still in the realm of possibility,” but added that “Democrats really might need Russ Feingold to run if they want to knock” Walker off the ballot.

Walker may survive a recall if he tailors more bipartisan issues, like job creation, to independent voters. “It will be nearly impossible [for Walker] to win Democratic voters back, but independent voters currently leaning against him probably could be convinced to come back to his side if the next six months are less divisive than the last seven months,” says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The Republican whom Democrats are expected to cajole and not criticize is state Sen. Dale Schultz, considered the single moderate in his party. Senator Schultz was the only Senate Republican to vote against Walker’s “budget repair bill,” and many Democrats have suggested that his vote is so valuable that he is first in line for any back-room negotiations that may take place once the Senate reconvenes this fall.

Time will tell whether Schultz ultimately serves as a lynchpin for more bipartisanship in the Senate, says Mr. Franklin. He will be sought after by Republicans, too, for potentially persuading moderate Democrats to vote for bills pushed forward by his own party.

“He’s certainly getting a lot of love and attention from a lot of people. Whether or not he’ll fulfill the role Democrats want him to fulfill” is less certain, Franklin says.

In Wisconsin, voters are about evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. “All evidence says [Wisconsin] is still a purple state,” says Franklin, which means it is likely to be among the swing states that decide the national election in 2012. “The underlying complexity of the electorate remains fairly closely divided,” he says. With so much hanging on Wisconsin next year, “a cliffhanger is the most likely outcome.”

RECOMMENDED: What Wisconsin says about labor unions' clout in America


View the original article here

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

NYC Dems tap state lawmaker to run for Weiner seat (AP)

NEW YORK – Democratic leaders have chosen a state lawmaker from Queens to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner, who resigned his seat in New York's 9th Congressional District last month after a sexting scandal.

Assemblyman David Weprin, 55, was expected to be formally nominated Friday by leaders of the Queens and Brooklyn Democratic parties, an adviser to Weprin said Thursday. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because the nomination had not been announced.

Weprin will be heavily favored to win the special election for the seat Sept. 13. While Republicans are expected to announce a nominee soon, no Republican has ever won the seat and the national party was not expected to invest significant resources in the contest.

Weprin was elected to the Assembly in 2010 after serving in the City Council for eight years. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for city comptroller in 2009.

Weiner stepped down in the middle of his seventh term after admitting he had sent sexually suggestive texts and photos to women he met on Twitter and other social networking sites. He remained popular in the district until the end, with polls showing a majority of residents did not believe he needed to resign.

New York is set to lose two House seats next year, based on the results of the 2010 census.


View the original article here

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Democrats seek debate on bank exposure to state laws - Reuters

* Barney Frank, other Dems seek longer comment period

* Proposal aims to restrict OCC in preempting state laws

* OCC has been criticized for shielding large banks

* BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo among banks the OCC oversees

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - Five Democrats are seeking more time for the public to influence a rule laying out when federal regulators can shield large U.S. banks from state consumer financial laws.

The five, including Barney Frank, who co-wrote last year's Dodd-Frank reform legislation, wrote a letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In it, they ask the regulator to reopen the proposal's comment period, which ended June 27.

The proposal, called for in Dodd-Frank, is designed to make it more difficult for the OCC to "preempt" state laws such as those governing predatory lending, mortgage rules and credit cards. [ID:nN25148900]

Critics of the OCC charge that in the run-up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the agency was too aggressive in preventing states from enforcing some consumer protection laws, and took an expansive view of its ability to do so under the National Bank Act.

The Democrats said a longer comment period is necessary "in light of the history of the OCC's previous preemption rulemaking, the clear gravity of preemption determinations generally."

The OCC has said it uses its preemption authority to protect national banks from a patchwork of state laws that can be contradictory and difficult to comply with. It has also noted that much of the worst subprime lending activity occurred at institutions outside of the OCC's jurisdiction.

The OCC had no immediate comment about the letter.

Bank of America (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N) are among the banks the OCC regulates. (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski, editing by Dave Zimmerman)


View the original article here