Democratic Debate in Nevada

Thursday night, the Democratic candidates for President debated in Nevada, one of the earlier primary states. I've been avoiding blogging on these debates because they're not specifically local to Arizona and I've been trying to keep from diving back into covering politics quite so soon. But we're getting within two months of the primaries, so it's about time to invest some bandwidth in the debates.

Overall, as an undecided voter, I was disappointed (again) in the debate format and post-debate analysis. There was clearly a forum bias in favor of Clinton, who did adequately well. But I think, as far as substance is concerned, other candidates did better.

Much is being brewed up about who won and who lost and whatever, of course. Sadly, framing debates with "winners" and "losers" means basically that the US citizens are the losers. The whole thing veers into the tribalistic, pep-rally mentality that rages throughout our society and infects everything from elections to foreign policy to domestic policy and so forth. But there are so many people who crave that kind of thing that the media will feed it to them with a spoon. And, just as if we gorged ourselves on junk food to the exclusion of nutritious meals of substance, our national political health suffers as a consequence.

Let's talk first about the meme that's going around that Clinton "won" this one. When pressed, the pundits say that because she's in the lead, and didn't "lose", then she won. It's about as shallow an analysis as one could propose, but one that seems to be gaining traction. But on examination, it holds no water, whatsoever. Some thoughts about Clinton in this debate:

1. CNN spent much of their pre-debate analysis pimping the whole attack-Clinton meme, setting the stage for conflict and confrontation between her and the other front-runner candidates and Clinton's counter-attack.

2. CNN then decided to make the first 15 minutes explicitly about Clinton. Rather than asking questions of substance and allowing distinctions between candidates to develop organically, the moderator intentionally drove the debate into the mud with questions to candidates about her controversial positions. It was clear that CNN wanted a slap-fest, which is exactly what they got.

3. The whole exchange seemed crafted to focus on Clinton and make it appear that Clinton was being bullied. Clinton was given significantly more time than other candidates, and in some cases FOUR TIMES as much time. Every time Edwards or Obama tried to point out Clinton's inconsistency in rhetoric or voting, Clinton supporters booed them from the audience. Clinton, who surely knows better, had the audacity to try to frame their objections to her lack of consistency as Republican tactics. And CNN's moderator explicitly asked a question about the gender issue that was geared to allowing Clinton to address being bullied. To which, her response spent over a minute explaining in one breath why she wasn't playing the gender card, and then in another several breaths, playing the heck out of it.

4. Finally, at the end of the debate, CNN chose to have an audience member ask Clinton a planted question about "diamonds or pearls" to further cement the gender issue and pander to Clinton's supporters.

5. CNN's post-debate analysis featured two commentators: Gergen and Carville, both of whom had served in Clinton's husband's administration. Carville, in fact, is an "informal advisor" to the Clinton campaign. Yet the clear bias in these allegiances were never mentioned in the post-debate analysis.

From the above, it is hard to conclude anything other than CNN was grossly biased in favor of providing Clinton as much focus as possible. If she "won" the debate, it's a victory with an asterisk beside it. If she "won" by simply "not losing", given the amount of forum bias in her favor then it's a black mark against her.

***

Let's talk a bit about the candidates, per their actual performance, in order of how they're doing in the polls:

Clinton.
Generally an okay performance, with the exception that the above points really soured me against her. Her answer appealing to women (the non-gender-card gender card answer) probably was her high point of the night. She knows that many women will be voting for her regardless of her policies or positions, because they see in her the chance to have a woman President, and that trumps all other considerations. So, she wisely is trying to emphasize this aspect, while trying to not look like she's so blatantly pandering to the women's vote (something she's not managing too well). Her answers on substance were generally nebulous and evasive, which further supports the developing meme that she parses and triangulates, rather than showing real leadership. She came out prepared to counterattack, and did, but in such a way that didn't actually address the objections leveled at her. And casting her opponents' legitimate objections to her inconsistency as "Republican tactics" in an effort to avoid having to address them is a no-no in my book. Negative points for playing the gender card AND the victim card.

Obama.
Not his best performance from a charisma standpoint but otherwise okay. Seemed hesitant and academic in contrast with some of his recent speeches which show him vibrant nd passionate. However, his arguments on substance were sound and detailed. His objection to Clinton's calling the top 6% the "middle class" was spot on, but he missed an opportunity to really shine, there. Stumbled on the question of the drivers licenses for illegals: his position is sound, but he articulated it poorly, which will make people think that he's waffling. This is unfortunate for him, because he's been consistent on his position, compared to Clinton who actually has been waffling back and forth on this issue during the past two weeks.

Edwards
Terrible debate for Edwards. Many of his answers had him responding to Clinton or addressing her positions. The audience's boos goaded him into being defensive. He introduced very little in the way of substance about his own ideas. He did make good, clearcut arguments about the Clinton's inconsistencies on a number of issues. However, his own consistency between his positions today and his voting record was thrown into sharp relief rather well by Kucinich. Seemed hollowed out, a bit, by this debate. As a result, I don't expect he was able to gain much new support from this event.

Richardson
Managed to include his resume well. Answer on border security was sound and detailed. Answer on national security and Pakistan well-principled, but had the air of impracticality. Missed an opportunity to re-frame the question on "national security vs human rights", which is a wedge issue framing. I would have preferred to see him reject the framing because it's a false dichotomy, as a couple of the other candidates did. Tried to "rise above" the arguments by casting the others as slinging mud, which lost support with me. I don't consider having animated disagreement over factual issues with someone's voting record to be "slinging mud", and when people try to quench that debate by suggesting it's mudslinging, it irritates me. Generally poor speaking skills get in his way, even when he's correct about things.

Biden
Probably one of strongest showings of the debate. Was authoritative and well-informed. Clinton says she's "ready to be President" on Day 1 and it sounds hollow because what she really wants people to understand is that her husband is ready to help her be President on Day 1. But when Biden says he has the experience to lead the country from Day 1, it rings true. At various times, the other candidates remarked on Biden's experience or built on his earlier response. His answer on Pakistan was a showcase of his experience and understanding of the issues facing the country in foreign policy. Very detailed answers, good command of the issues. Showed a sense of humor.

Dodd.
A bit crusty, but clearly well-informed and his experience was on display. Dodd's answer about merit pay for teachers was probably the best answer to that question and also his best moment of the evening. Tried to avoid the bare knuckle work of the top three candidates, but again, calling Edwards' passion and animation in debate "anger" is an unfortunate framing. It is legitimate to expect the candidates to distinguish themselves and to do so passionately and animatedly. Aside from the legitimate need for passionate, factual debate, there's the simple visceral thrill many viewers sadly get from seeing conflict. Dodd hopes to gain sympathy, like Richardson, for calling for a kinder, gentler debate. Not going to happen (especially when the debates are being structured intentionally to lead to conflict, and that conflict is something many viewers enjoy). Dodd's answer on the question of illegal immigrants was good, but the spoken Spanish was a blatant pander.

Kucinich.
It's painful to say, but if this man were six inches taller and knew how to be more selective on what he says, he'd be in the top tier, right now. The height issue is an unfortunate bias of human nature, sadly, and Kucinich has no control over it. But intentionally discussing your UFO experiences is something that is all his fault. And so, taken together with other comments, there's really nothing he can say at this point to become anything other than a joke, to many people. It's too bad, because many of his positions are quite reasonable. And his point in the debate about "imagine having a President that's right the FIRST time" is spot on, and probably hs best claim to the Presidency. However, as Dean has recently quipped, "I told you so" is a very poor campaign slogan. Many folks don't like to be reminded that they were flat wrong, and their unfortunate human response is to actually think less of the one who was right all along. As frustrating as this is, it's a factor in play with Kucinich.

Kucinich made another good point when he noted that, for all of Edwards' arguments about Clinton's inconsistencies, Edwards has shifted positions on some key positions himself, in the past few years. It's important to note that Clinton's inconsistency is an entirely different kind than Edwards' is. Clinton is trying to parse and triangulate and hold two contradictory positions at the same time, depending on the forum in which she's speaking. Edwards has taken very clear and unequivocal positions, but they are in direct contradiction of positions that he took six years ago, which he now says were wrong. To be honest, these inconsistencies shatter my confidence in Clinton's integrity as well as make me question whether Edwards is simply incompetent or just expediently insincere. Neither is acceptable and Kucinich is quite right to point this out.

Conclusion:

All told, I'd have to say that Biden and Kucinich turned in top-notch debate performances. Clinton, Obama, Richardson and Dodd did adequately well. Edwards probably had a sub-par night.

However, Clinton clearly benefited from a significant forum bias, however, which tarnishes both her performance and CNN's staging of the event, in my view. If some say that she "won" by simply "not losing" in such a biased forum, then I'd be more tempted to say that she actually "lost" by "not winning".

To have been given such a huge forum advantage as CNN gave Clinton (pre-show, post-show, planted questions and time advantage, not to mention the focus on Clinton in the first 15 minutes and the audience members classlessly booing her opponents), and then NOT to walk away as the clear-cut winner seems to me to be a black eye for her. To walk away as merely not having "lost" is, under such circumstances, truly damning with faint praise.

Finally, a huge black mark against CNN for the pre-debate orchestration of the Clinton pile-up, as well as the lavishing of time and opportunity upon her during the debate to redeem herself and the biased post-debate analysis. Whether because CNN wants Clinton to win or whether they just think it's good business to showcase her as a controversial figure, it showed an aggravating lack of objectivity in something so critically important in our body politic. Such forum bias really has no place in these events, and though I don't blame Clinton for taking advantage of it, someone at CNN owes the US public an apology for abdicating the responsibility to provide a level playing field for these debates.

Councilwoman Trinity Donovan, a true Public Servant

As Chandler, Arizona's City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan wraps up her first year in office, those of us that supported her are ecstatic to find that our faith in her as a demonstrated public servant was well deserved. She has exemplified sincere, thoughtful public service for many, many years and her past year in elected office follows that same trend. She is widely known for her constituent support, comity and insight into the needs of our community.

The Arizona Republic, having endorsed her campaign, is also experiencing the same pleased satisfaction as they consider Councilwoman' Donovan's first year in office. Furthermore, they want to hear from you folks, too. From their site:

Donovan does a good job staying in touch with constituents

Chandler City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan is an advocate for the people, and that earned our support in both the 2006 primary and general elections.

A year later, The Republic's Southeast Valley Editorial Board, still a proponent of Donovan, wants to hear from the people she represents through an online forum at eastvalleyopinions.azcentral.com.

Read the article, it's pretty good (and spot-on accurate, too). And then leave a note telling how Councilwoman Donovan has impressed you this past year.

Harry Mitchell appearance tomorrow; puts education first

Harry Mitchell (AZ CD-5) will be meeting at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning, Aug 15th, with Arizona Legislative District 20 (LD20) Democrats for the LD20's monthly "Democrats and Donuts" get-together. Harry will be giving an update on the latest from his work in Washington D.C., representing us here in CD-5, as well as answering questions from his constituents.

(Instead of meeting at the Ahwatukee Fire Station, the meeting will be held at Clarion Hotel at 5121 E La Puente Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85044. The hotel is northwest of I-10 and Elliot, off of 51st St.)

And since I didn't mention it, let me now recall Harry's excellent vote in July in favor of the College Cost Reduction Act. When I and my colleagues traveled to Washington this Spring, we met with Harry's legislative assistant and with Harry himself. This legislation was a major focus of our lobbying efforts with Representative Mitchell and our other elected representatives. It's great to see a true educator like Harry Mitchell voting on this issue to put education first.

From the AFL-CIO's July newsletter:

Mitchell Votes to Make Historic Investment in Higher Education - Continues Commitment to Make College More Affordable

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today voted in favor of the College Cost Reduction Act - the single largest investment in student aid since the GI Bill -boosting federal financial aid available to students at Arizona colleges and universities by a total of $714 million over the next five years.

"As a former teacher, I'll always value the role of education in our communities and economy," said Mitchell. "The cost of attending college continues to rise in Arizona and across the country. This is an important and historic step toward making sure that qualified students are never denied a degree because of a lack of financial aid."

H.R. 2669, which passed the House by a vote of 273-149, would boost college financial aid by about $18 billion over the next five years at no cost to taxpayers. The College Cost Reduction Act pays for itself by reducing excessive federal subsidies paid to college loan lenders by $19 billion. The additional $1 billion goes toward reducing the federal budget deficit.

Similar to the College Student Relief Act of 2007, which the House passed earlier this year, the College Cost Reduction Act would cut interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in equal steps over the next five years. The rate cut would save Arizonans an estimated $4,730 over the life of the loan at a four-year school.

Mitchell's vote raises the maximum value of the Pell Grant scholarship by $500 over the next five years. More than 33,000 Arizona students take out need-based loans each year at four-year public schools.

Arizona State University, which is located in the Fifth District, with an enrollment of more than 63,000, is one of the nation's largest universities. The district also includes Mesa, Scottsdale and Rio Salado community colleges.

Interview with Chandler City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan - Parts 4 and 5 of 5

After MUCH delay, I have finally been able to transcribe the rest of my interview with Chandler, Arizona's excellent City Councilwoman Trinity Donovan. I'm including the two final installments (4 & 5) together. Prior installments include Parts 1, 2 and 3.

(As for the delay, I can only claim an extraordinarily overwhelming work and school schedule that have kept me inundated. Between my full-time job, a part time teaching role, taking part-time college coursework and my other obligations, it has averaged about an 80 hour week. Fortunately, with the end of the semester last week, I've cut back down to simply working one full-time job - JOY!)

I'd like to thank you all for your patience in receiving this final interview installment, and most especially thanks to Councilwoman Donovan, who was doubly gracious - first to give me the interview and second to wait so long to be published in its entirety.

Also, I'd like to note that Councilwoman Donovan will be guest speaking tonight at 7 pm at the District 20 Democrats' district meeting at Desert Breeze Park Substation.

***

(Interview continued from Part 3...)

Geo: You said you worked with ICAN for a couple of summers and then you became the CEO. How do you make that kind of jump from being a summer volunteer to becoming the CEO of an organization?

TD: During the summers I was going to school at Stanford and Stanford had an amazing work study program, that if you had work study in your financial aid package, they would pay - if you worked for a non-profit - they would pay 90% of your salary and the non-profit only had to pay 10%. It would be a Stanford wage, which would be much higher than an Arizona wage, and it was for 40 hours a week.

So ICAN had, my first summer, one full-time employee, the CEO, and had part-time employees working directly with the kids. So for me to be able to work 40 hours a week there and they pay me – it was either eight or ten dollars an hour at that time (which can still be good here in Arizona). So they were paying 90 cents to the dollar for 40 hours a week for me to be there 40 hours.…The CEO worked more than 40 hours a week, but I was able to work almost the same amount of hours as the CEO, when everyone else was working less.

I was able to work directly with the kids, work on programmatic, organization, I guess, and getting field trips for the summer developed, and then also be a resource to the CEO and learn more about the “behind the scenes” work of ICAN and what was happening.

Geo: You were able to get an exposure to the organizational aspects of it that, maybe, someone else might not…

TD: Mm-hmm.

Geo:...and so, did an opening come up, then?

TD: I was graduating from Stanford – I got my Bachelor’s and my Master’s from there - and there were people there who, in September of our Senior year, were already interviewing. That wasn’t me. I had learned in the Spring that the CEO I had worked for was going to be leaving and she suggested I put an application in. Then I was applying for something else in Pittsburgh and a few other things, but had come home and was going to work for ICAN in the summer at least and see where to go. So we interviewed and it just…worked out. It was a great experience for me to be able to run an organization right after college. It was something I had wanted to do, didn’t see that it would necessarily come up right away, but doing that was a better experience than the opportunity I had to go to Pittsburgh, so I chose staying here instead. And I’m glad that I did.

Geo: So, going from that and the United Way, to running for office, what was the trigger there?

TD: I always thought I'd be running for City Council. I just wasn’t sure when.

Geo: “Always” meaning even back when you were in…

TD: Sorry, “Always” should be when I was at ICAN.

Geo: So, after you left Stanford.

TD: Yeah. When I was a kid, that wasn’t something that crossed my mind as being a possibility. But as an adult, I’ve had that in my mind, running for City Council. Didn’t know when. I was speaking in church about how we canbe active in our communities. I really appreciate my opportunities to do service in other countries, but there is so much service that can be done right here. And I talked about those educational statistics that I mentioned before. There was a high school student who was a senior who was playing trumpet that day, sitting in the choir loft, and he gave his number to an usher and asked me to call him. He’s like “This may be weird, you don’t know me, but I think you should run for something and I want to assemble a team to help you.”

So, my first thought was to laugh. (laughs) He actually wanted me to run for the Legislature.

Geo: This is a senior in high school…

TD: …that helped propel my campaign. He was a Flynn Scholar - which I think there are 20 in the state – which are very prestigious scholarships that keeps top students in Arizona, instead of having them go to schools all over the U.S. My first thought was to laugh, especially since he said Legislature, and that wasn’t my interest. But Council was and so we talked about it more. I have a lot of knowledge about our community and a willingness to learn more. I don’t have a lot of knowledge about politics. Now, politics means different things, so non-profits have a lot of politics, but in terms of running a campaign. So he assembled a Press Secretary, Deputy Director, he was my Campaign Manager, volunteer coordinator and many ASU students who had energy and enthusiasm helped me with what my literature should look like, what should my signs look like. The person who did those – the Press Secretary – was also a friend. They were now freshmen in college…

Geo: …at ASU?

TD: Mm-hmm, during most of the campaign. He was then getting, after people saw the literature, was getting job offers on literature. Having those ASU students kept my costs down and was good experience for all of us. You know, I’d get emails from them with the time 10 p.m., midnight, 2 a.m…for some reason, I don’t think I ever got an email that was time-stamped 8 a.m.

Geo: Eight a.m.??

TD: (laughs) There were no 8 a.m. ones!

But they, then, really helped so I could focus on being out in the community. They could help me with ‘here’s my thoughts, how do those, then get…how do I run those by them to make sure they’re more polished,’ perhaps. But then they helped with the strategy of what poll should I stand at fir the first election, they had complicated formulas…

Geo: Wait, what poll you should stand at?

TD: Yeah, standing at the polls.

Geo: And what decision-making was that based on?

TD: It was a very long formula of – we’d have to see how many people do we think are going to be at the polls, which is the best one to be at, what times. And so we picked the Presbyterian Church, north of Germann, between Dobson and Alma School, And that one ended up – Sun Lakes had the most people, but I think that included the early ballots – that one had the most people come on that day. As they’re picking between seven candidates, they may come for one Councilperson. One person said “Well, I know I’m voting for this persona and this person, but I have one left and you’re here. I’m going to be voting for you.” And while that was a little bit of luck, it was also the top poll the past election and so looking at that plus the growth of the area, how many are we predicting would be from there.

They also helped with my walking. I focused on West Chandler first and then went to other areas of Chandler once I finished that. West Chandler was an area I haven’t lived in yet, and many of the people that are running live in South Chandler. So typically you’d think ‘well, I’m going to start walking the neighbourhoods that I know, first, and go out from there. So let’s go in a place where probably no one will be. And there were other people that were out there dropping literature there, but many people have said “I haven’t seen a Councilperson or someone running come to my door and I’ve lived here for 15 years.” So it was that kind of strategy, helped as well.

They also really enjoyed going door-to-door, too. So they assembled teams and would do creative ways of bringing people together, having a marathon. You know, “we’re going to lit-drop for this much time, and then we’re going to have pizza, and then we’re going to lit-drop and then watch a movie, and then we’re going to go out again. Kind of just making it fun. And then bringing in other volunteers – other people in the community in addition to the college students who were excited to help on the campaign, I mean, they were a big piece of helping to move all my campaign forward.

Geo: How did you find fundraising as a candidate?

TD: Fundraising is hard. And it was such a humbling experience. I mean, I’ve raised money for causes, but for me to be the cause is a different experience. We did a really good job of using [funds] – in the first campaign, with the seven people, we were sixth in the amount of money we spent. But then I was second in the amount of votes I got. Then in the second campaign, with three people, we spent the least amount of the three.

Geo: The early numbers I saw were $14 thousand or so, compared to $21 or $28 thousand from the other candidates…

TD: It was about $16 thousand total for the first campaign, so it might have been $14 thousand for one of the financial reports (an then we probably had some outstanding bills after that from the campaign). And then I think it was either $34 or $36 thousand total, for both campaigns, versus I think it was up to $60 thousand for one of the other candidates. I didn’t want to be spending money that I didn’t have, as well. It was easier to get money after the first campaign, because I had done so well. But really, it’s such a humbling experience to ask for money for myself, calling people up. I’d be so thankful for strangers who’d be giving me money, who had hope for my campaign and then friends that I’d had for a long time – regardless of the amount of money that they gave. A friend of mine: ‘this is important to you and we want to give you money’…Hearing that story of friends putting money towards my campaign and friends as well, it was just amazing.

We had the most - I think we had a lot more – smaller amounts, but the most people donating in those smaller amounts really made it so that we could have…I don’t know if we had the most people overall donating, but definitely the most under-25 donations of everyone.

Geo: Under-25 dollars....

TD: Yes, under–25 dollars. So to have people give whatever they made it so that we could really campaign,

Geo: Whom would you call? How did you target people to call?

TD: My campaign manager was very good at making sure that I was calling the list of friends and family that I had. After the campaign we did a debriefing, and it was good to hear him say he was surprised at how well we did in my asking for money from individuals and getting so much. Because typically people rely - well, typically may be a generalization that isn’t true - but you can see nationally as well as through many campaigns that people are relying in on PAC, the Political Action Committee, funds and funds from really those that can give larger amounts of money, or the prominent people who are influential in the community. And it would have been great to get money from them, but that wasn’t money that we could get, at least through the first election.

So looking at living here 20 years, I have a base of people that I know and just asking them for money, sending them emails for money and then following up with phone calls and having that communication as the campaign is moving forward, ‘This is what’s happening”. Doing house parties - that had mixed success with fundraising but were really good in just getting to know other people, other people’s friends in the community.

Geo: Did you encounter, in your fundraising, especially with people who were already your friends or maybe with members of the church, did you encounter any of the wedge issue questions come up, that seem to dominate a lot of the state and national level politics? Were there any litmus tests, “where do you stand on this”, or “how do you view that?”

TD: There was some of that. Typically it wasn’t – I think you’re mentioning about is when I call a friend. I know someone who this did happen to her – she was running in another city, for School Board, actually – she calls asking for money and the other person’s like “Well, how do you stand on this?” Which has nothing to do with the school board. And she says “well, you’ve known me for ten years and you’re asking me about this issue?” (laughs) And so I did encounter some of that.

Our elections in Chandler are changing to now be in September and November when, through all of this that we’ve just experienced in the Presidential elections. And that may change how much more we’re asked about partisan issues and issues of national scope. There were people I’d have conversations with that I didn’t necessarily agree with them on those issues, or also didn’t give them the answer they wanted to hear on something. If there’s an issue that’s pro or con, sometimes there are things that are more in the middle that we may need to look at. It’s not how many issues we try to make black and white, because it’s easier that way to pick a side on the issue – and you’lll have camaraderie from this side and people to hate on the other side – and feel better than the people on this side that you demonize instead of getting to know. But there is often so much gray in these issues that it’s pieces of one side have worth and pieces of another - that you agree with, too, because there may be other pieces of their argument that have worth but that you don’t agree with. But how do we get to a ground that, when people aren’t speaking on the same terms, you can’t get to a solution.

There was someone with a more national issue who, we didn’t necessarily agree, but I spoke the truth that wasn’t necessarily against what he would say, but just wasn’t on his side, necessarily. And he ended up sending me a donation. Whih I think it was good in that, honesty, while it would be easy for me to pick a side on the issues and know that these people don’t like me and these people do, now. But when you don’t pick a side, you run the risk of both sides not liking you.

Geo: Right, because you’re “not taking a stand”, you’re kind of “hiding” your view?

TD: Well, it depends. I’m pretty practical and rational, and sometimes there’s so much emotion caught in the sides of the issue. Like the Mark Pentz case, when we were running. But the rational was not about the emotion of the sides, but what’s best for Chandler. I wasn’t on Council when they were going through al of this, I wasn’t in the Executive Sessions. But how do we run a review? And how do we make those changes that make it so a person can know what goals are set and whether they’re achieving them. So in that issue it wasn’t whether “am I for or against Mark Pentz”, is was “here’s the process that’s happening” and we fixed that process.

Geo: Have you ever just responded to someone and said “You know, that’s really not an issue we deal with on City Council, so it’s kind of not germane to this campaign?”

TD: Sometimes I would. That would be, perhaps, my first response. One thing could be like, well…(laughs)…thinking better of it… My first response could be “this is what the Council’s about” and they’d say “oh, okay, then I won’t ask that.” Others would be like “you didn’t answer my question…” (laughs) …”and so, thanks for explaining that to me, but I still want to know the answer.” I’d start with that and it would satisfy some, but I would be open to talking with people more in a discussion, rather than a “yes or no” answer on some issues.

There are other people who talked about a national issue and I didn’t agree with them and they spoke what I thought was exaggerations of the truth or mistruth…(laughs) is that a new word?

Geo: We’re allowed. Language is a living thing, you know, we’re allowed to create…

TD: I mean, I had a choice in talking to him, I could have just listened to him, not agreed but not let him know. But it was something I felt I needed to correct him on, which was dangerous for me. It could have been that he just needed a venting session, I was listening to him so now I have his vote, but I corrected him on some things he said. We had a great conversation afterwards, though we definitely didn’t agree on all points of that issue. But he came away respecting me for the conversation we had. And he said he would vote for me…(laughs) We left not frustrated, which is a good thing, too. Really having a conversation, instead.

Geo: Well, I certainly appreciate your time. We’ve gone over and you’ve been very gracious. Thank you very much Councilwoman Donovan.

TD: Thank you.

Two Chandler developments strike the right tone for some, not for others

As I was driving home yesterday, I passed the abandoned hulk that is the ugly skeleton of the aborted Elevation Chandler project at the corner of the 101 and 202 freeways, it occurred to me how much it resembled the partially completed concrete structures common to much of the developing world in which I've served over the past eight years.

It also occurred to me how much more diligence probably should have gone into vetting the project and its backers before it was approved by our City Council. A sentiment no doubt shared by our Council members, now, too. Hindsight is great, that way.

Two more developments in Chandler, Arizona construction news (coming from the journalistic pen of Marshall Terrill and the Chandler Connection). Again, some pleased, some notsomuch.

1. Ocotillo grows up into 2nd city hub (sorry, no permalink)

Civic officials are looking forward to the creation of a second downtown location thanks to a Chandler-based developer. The Chandler City Council unanimously approved four different zoning actions for Downtown Ocotillo, an 11-acre commercial retail, office, hotel and multi-family residential development at the southwest corner of Dobson and Queen Creek roads.

Lawrence and Geyser Development says the mixed-use project will feature a live-work-dine-shop environment and will create a new “downtown” for residents in the Ocotillo area. “It’s a fully detailed and pedestrian friendly development and it truly is a great use for the area,” said Bob Weworski, a principal planner for Chandler who is working on the application. “This development really fits the lifestyle for Ocotillo.”

... But not everyone is for the project. Martin Hazine, who represents George and Tina Tibsherany, who own the nearby Aquila Ocotillo office complex, said the proposed mid-rise buildings are problematic.

“Introducing a five- or six-story building is a concern for us and would have a tremendous impact to the adjacent community,” Hazine told the council, adding that he also felt the parking lots need to be more pedestrian friendly and some of the buildings are too close to the lake.

2. Official: colors too loud: Developer says beauty in the eye of beholder

A city official has sent a message to the developer of a high profile neighborhood in Historic Downtown Chandler: tone it down. The sender is Chandler Vice Mayor Lowell Huggins and the recipient is Tempe-based developer Benton-Robb Development Associates. Huggins says the 54-unit town home development known as 123 Washington, at the southeast corner of Chandler Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, is a great idea but the color scheme is a little over the top. “I get daily complaints about the color scheme and for me, they just aren’t going to work,” he said Monday. “It’s an eyesore.”

Huggins said he likes Robb and wants the development to be a success, but said the bright mustard, red, green and white fusion of colors make him wince. “This development needs to be successful in order to establish a great downtown area and I don’t want them to fail over paint color,” Huggins said, adding that he has asked City Manager Mark Pentz to call Robb to see if he would change the color pattern.

Pentz said Monday there might not be much the city can do.“We really have no authority to ask them to do that because everything has already been approved.”

Councilmember Bob Caccamo said the color schemes were the same as when they were presented to the council. He did, however, add a caveat: “It looks a lot different than the architectural drawings.”

You know, this also reminds me of when I was in business in the software development and publishing industry here in the East Valley. We'd go through a detailed TDR (Technical Design Review) process and outline the interface design and functionality for a new product with our client. Then we'd spend months working on it, managing the deliverables and turning in the project on time and on budget. And then we'd get a call from some executive at the client's firm - a finance officer, for example - who didn't like the color scheme or thought a clickable button should be shaped differently.

It's a strange aspect of human nature that leads to this tendency. Where color is concerned, it's as if everyone becomes a design expert. They also tend to be unaware of how even simple changes in color can have dramatic impact on the whole rest of the design. In software development, for example, it may mean a whole palette shift with a resulting engineering headache. Or it could mean that carefully planned disabled-access features (such as making the color scheme viewable for the colorblind or for otherwise feeble eyes).

Of course, we'd accommodate the client's wishes whenever possible, but when it's one voice among many, and that voice is speaking without the authority of the client's decision-making structure - rather, they're just voicing a personal opinion - AND it's taking place late in the development cycle after the design has been approved and much work and quality control has already gone into the product, we didn't generally feel compelled to bend to the individual's suggestions.

Of course, we were always diplomatic. No point in upsetting an influential member of your client's senior management staff...

Rep. Robson (R-Ahwatukee) one of the flat-earthers on global warming?

There's still significant controversy about whether global warming is man-made or natural, with most peer-reviewed scientists coming down on the side of saying man's impact is a significant part of the problem, while most scientists paid by petroleum industry interests and their political enablers argue it's not.

At any rate, regardless of your position on who's causing it, it's pretty much been established that there IS global warming going on. Every now and then, though, you find a flat-earther who is willfully ignorant that this consensus has been reached, in complete contradiction of known facts.

Fellow blogger Zelph observes that Arizona District 20's own State Representative, Bob Robson may be one:

Rep. Bob Robson, R-Chandler on global warming:

"I think the polar ice cap is colder than it's ever been. That's what I hear. I'm sure there's some melting going on, but how much of it is natural?"

Well Bob, you might consider this.

Good catch, Zelph. From the NRDC wesite:

"Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century."

Now, no matter what you believe about whether man has a hand in global warming, you can't really get around the fact that the polar ice cap is most certainly NOT colder than it's ever been and that it is, in fact, melting at an alarming rate.

So the question: is Representative Robson - the Speaker Pro Tempore in the Arizona House as well as Vice Chairman of the Environment Committee - an ideological flat-earther? Or is he just very uninformed for someone in his position of responsibility?

Mitchell's committee to investigate Walter Reed

The scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed has seen the ouster of the 2-star general officer in charge (Maj. Gen. George Weightman), as well as the resignation of the Army Secretary, Francis Harvey. But it's not ending there.

Because Harvey's chosen replacement to head up Walter Reed may have been involved in the negligent treatment decisions and general mismanagement, Defense Secretary Gates has not only accepted Harvey's resignation, but has also announced that Harvey's choice to replace Weightman at the helm of Walter Reed (Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley) would be replaced, as well.

This scandal may deepen as further investigations take place. The House of Representatives will be investigating, headed by our Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ-5). From Plugged In:

Arizona U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell will hold hearings on reports of the dilapidated conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and how those conditions could impact soldiers as they transition to their status as veterans

Mitchell is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

"The care wounded soldiers receive in the weeks and months after their injuries have a direct impact on their future needs as veterans," said Mitchell.

Technical problems with LeftyBlogs feed

Unfortunately, ever since I upgraded to the new Blogger about a month ago, LeftyBlogs' aggregator has not been able to read my RSS feed accurately to place my "local" posts (such as those related to Congressman Mitchell) in its Local subsection. As a result, none of my posts are passing through to the Local subsection of that site.

I've sent emails and comments to them to work through the problem - it's something that others are experiencing - but so far, there's no fix. And since they are a non-profit, hobbyist kind of operation (like my blog), then they may not get it fixed for some time.

As a result, If readers are using the LB website to see AZ blog posts, then they will need to check the "All Posts" subsection in order to see Precinct 134 posts. I'll let you know when and if the good folks at LB are able to get this sorted out.

Thanks for understanding,
Geo

Updates on Harry Mitchell

A few links with recent news and updates related to Congressman Mitchell (AZ-5):

1. Sit-down chat with Harry Mitchell.

2. Mitchell opens Scottsdale District office on Sunday.

3. cpmaz's take on Mitchell's new office opening.

4. Mitchell planning to head to Iraq.

5. Progressive Wave notes that KJZZ has broadcast their second interview with Harry Mitchell.

6. Congressman Mitchell's new official website!

Sparks and SPPF at the MCCD Governing Board meeting tonight

I just returned from the meeting of the Maricopa Community College District's (MCCD) Governing Board this evening. Our Student Public Policy Forum (SPPF) group was on hand to present the results of our recent lobbying trip to Washington D.C. to promote the higher education legislative agenda to our elected representatives.

I wasn't able to stay until the end of the meeting, but the first half went well, from what I saw, with one notable exception. Namely, the first person up to speak - a student from Scottsdale Community College who was NOT in our SPPF program - took the opportunity to not only lodge a complaint about the Board, but did so in some of the rudest terms I've ever heard anyone speak at a public policy gathering.

The fellow, whose name escapes me, shambled up to the microphone with his shirttail drooping out of his trousers and pulled out a sheaf of papers on which he'd written his fulminating screed. After he'd accused the whole Board of corruption and began to talk about coverups, "sacrificial lambs" and the "sins of the fathers", he then warmed up to accusing the Board of other ulterior motives and so forth.

It was part rant and part Dr. Bronner's soap label. There seemed to be no real facts in anything he was saying, just a lot of highly charged invective. After a couple of minutes of this undiluted vitriol, Presiding Board Member Rosenthal interrupted him and asked, "Excuse me...what is the bottom line of your complaint?"

At this, the fellow became even more adversarial and suggested that Madam President had derailed him from his rant so as to undermine his freedom of speech, which, and I'm not kidding here, "the Sheriff's office would have something to say about".

When President Rosenthal said that further comments of his insulting nature wouldn't be acceptable, he lashed back with a comment about "it shows where your hearts and minds really are". Which I guess means, if you aren't prepared to just sit there and have me spit insults at you, then you're a bad public servant, or something.

"You're excused," Madame President finally said, to the relief of many in the room, I'm sure.

As the fellow gathered up his papers and prepared to skulk from the room, he said "I just hope the media will take notice of this." For that matter, I hope so, too. He was an excellent cautionary example of how NOT to lobby your public officials.

After he left, Mrs. Rosenthal noted calmly that citizen participation in this forum is most welcome, but it was predicated on a certain standard of courtesy. And, in her opinion, that standard was not being met by the fellow's behavior. I couldn't agree more emphatically.

***

Perhaps 20 minutes later in the meeting, our group was able to speak. After introduction by Vice-Chancellor Helfgot, our Director of the program (Chad Douwstra) spoke briefly and introduced about a half-dozen of us students. We each took perhaps a minute to share some brief impressions and personal relevance of our experience in the SPPF program.

When my turn came, I noted that lobbying is a word that has fallen into disrepute, but it is a critical part of our civic society. To proactively champion an issue or advocate for your values with elected officials is part of the bedrock of our country. The SPPF program taught us not only the mechanics and logistics of how to do this, but also why it is important. Inspired by the grotesque example of the rude fellow that had spoken at the beginning of the meeting, I emphasized that we also learned how to do it in a spirit of collaboration and courtesy. Two principles, I noted, that ought to be part of the foundation of our body politic.

I was concerned that I would be physically able to speak, as I'm nursing a sore throat (my voice did crack once). But it went well. The other students who spoke were superb. I was especially moved by my colleague Chris, who closed for us, drawing the importance of being able to lobby as part of the American experience and how the program enabled us to be a part of that experience more richly than before. In all, the presentation went well and I was extraordinarily proud to be a part of that group.

If anyone would like to find out how to become a part of the SPPF program at their community college, please check with your Student Life Director for more information or send me an email). If you're interested in learning how and why to lobby, as well as developing a network of friends to help you develop in this area, it's an excellent training experience.

And, it's more than just an educational opportunity. As I said to the Governing Board in my own closing comments, to be able to go from volunteering on a campaign to help elect a Congressman to, a few months later, standing in his office in Washington D.C. and championing the issues and legislation that are important to me, was an experience that I will never forget.

I'm extraordinarily grateful for the Board's support of the SPPF program and for being able to take part in it. As soon as I got home, I sent Mrs. Rosenthal an email thanking her and the Board again for the opportunity to speak and their support for the SPPF program. And I also noted how pleased I was with the way she handled the very passionate, but also very rude, fellow who definitely needed to get some training on how to lobby his public officials.