Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

La Raza to the Bottom

2009-11-08T12:08:48-05:00

There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Tucson Intelligentsia over the defeat of the school overrides. How could the enlightened voters of Tucson--after years of training by the Star--overwhelmingly reject much needed budget overrides? Perhaps the university professors, think tank operators and newspaper editors should stop asking each other that question and turn to some real voters.

A friend of mine did just that at the Tucson gun show yesterday. Sure, it's not scientific to wander around the gun show and ask people why they think Tucson voters rejected the overrides, but the answers he received were instructive.

And the answer? "Those damn La Raza programs." For some reason the guys at the gun show didn't think that a program that teaches that the founding fathers are racists and Che Guevara was a hero deserved any more funding.

But you respond that the gun show crowd's response isn't not logical. After all, the overrides funded a lot more than TUSD Ethnic Studies programs, and some of the overrides weren't even for TUSD. That's true, and the elite opinion makers can whine about that over brie and lattes if they want, but eventually they will figure out that voters aren't exceptionally analytical. They vote on a 30-second impression: "he's an honest candidate, or "she can bring about change", or "TUSD is really screwed up and they have all these radical leftists wearing Che T shirts and teaching kids about the evil white guys."

Well, the "evil white guys" voted no. Disrespect ordinary voters long enough and they tend to do that.

Technology that's a bit too helpful...

2009-11-08T10:57:31-05:00

I was picking up my daughter from a junior high field trip and I texted her that I was in the parking lot. Her tour was running a bit late, so she wanted to text back that she needed more time and she decided to try out her first year Spanish skills and texted back "un momento por favor".

Unfortunately, she has installed an auto fill feature on her phone called "T-9". Unfortunately T-9 doesn't recognize Spanish and had no idea what she meant so the message that I received was "unobserved momentous porn favor"

Hmm, perhaps a little too much help.

How the Other Half Lives

2009-11-07T12:10:18-05:00

Information is now divided into three distinct sections. There's the stuff that's covered in the mainstream media--what I call "corporate news." Then there's the vast, unregulated blogosphere where the real news breaks. I mention that there are three sections because the Blogosphere is divided into left and right and each section not only has its own culture, but each half also has its own information.

Confirmation Bias--the tendency for people to only read the informatio that conforms to their world view--ensures that the left reads the left side of the Blogosphere, while the right only reads the right half.

Here's an example. If you get your information from the mainstream media or the left side of the blogosphere, you probably have never seen this chart. If you pay attention to the right side of the blogosphere--Drudge, Instapundit, Power Line, IMAO etc. You will be very familiar with the chart--having seen it on the first week of ever month since early last summer.

The chart is based on the Obama administration's estimate of job losses without his Stimulus package and with his Stimulus package. The chart is so effective and powerful because someone has simply posted actual data on top of Obama's own projections. The chart eventually went mainstream and last month's version was featured a Wall Street Journal editorial.

I think that the bifurcation of the Blogosphere is one reason why the left and the right have trouble communicating. So for example, when Obama talks about the jobs his Stimulus package has "created or saved" the Right will think of the chart and immediately understand that the claim is ridiculous. The left and the mainstream media--who have never seen the chart--don't understand why readers of the right side of the blogosphere audibly guffaw when ever someone repeats the administration's silly claim.

Say it Aint So Joe.

2009-11-05T18:38:55-05:00

Check this out from Reason TV.

The amazing video below was taken on October 19 in Arizona's Maricopa County Superior Court.

As defense attorney Joanne Cuccia discusses her client's sentencing hearing with the judge, Maricopa County Sheriff's Department detention officer Adam Stoddard walks up behind her, and begins sifting through one of her files, which she has placed on the defense table. Remarkably, Stoddard then removes a document from the file and hands it off to another deputy, who then leaves the courtroom with it. They don't even bother to inform Cuccia, who has her back turned the entire time. The judge appears to have missed the incident as well.

Best AZ Campaign Commercial of the Cycle...Guaranteed

2009-11-05T06:30:00-05:00

Wow, this is a great commercial. Hmm, you know with a few clicks of a mouse, the graphic could be changed from "State Senate" to "Congressional District 8." Just saying.

One more Upset?

2009-11-04T19:57:24-05:00

The Tucson City Council race between Uhlich and Garcia is getting tighter. They are only seperated by about 450 votes and there are still nearly 5,000 ballots out--and those ballots are trending Garcia's direction.

...Must...avoid..."Uhlich" pun...

Tucson's Topsy Turvy Turmoil Takes Toll on Trasoff

2009-11-04T11:27:44-05:00

Here was my Tucson Election Prediction.

So If I have to predict, I would say it's still likely that the Democrats will prevail. But if you are looking for one upset in your Pol Pool, bet against Trasoff.

Indeed, with 98% of the vote counted, Trasoff is down by well over 1,000 I don't think she has conceded yet, but that looks to me like it's mathematically over. She's the first Democratic incumbent to lose a a City Council seat in over 40 years.

The Tucson Vote looks like a massive protest vote. Voters rejected the school overrides by substantial margins, prompting a shell shocked Daily Star to proclaim the end of the world.

Voters have failed Tucson's kids. But the failure to pass most school districts' bids for budget overrides in the general election won't only harm kids in classrooms.

The failure will ripple throughout the community. School budgets will be slashed and employers looking to set up shop in Tucson will read this as a giant, flashing warning sign to stay away. It's hard to blame them.

So what does last night mean?

Well, the national results confirm what we have been seeing in the polls for a few months. Voters are really ticked off and they are moving away from Democratic incumbents. It's becoming clear that Democrats are going to lose a lot of seats in 2010.

However, now it's clear that Tucson voters--rather than lagging the trend--are actually going to lead it. They seem to be more surly than voters in the rest of the state.

Naturally, that brings me to Tucson Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She's facing a double whammy--a national trend in which voters are moving back to Republicans in large numbers combined with a local anti-incumbent/anti-establishment sentiment in which voters from reliably liberal Tucson rejected their school over rides and threw out and incumbent city councilwoman.

At the moment, Giffords faces Jesse Kelly. Kelly certainly isn't the strongest opponent that Republicans could mount against Giffords. But he may end up being a Trent Franks--someone viewed as too conservative to get elected, but who is in the right place at the right time.

Gifford's strongest opponent, of course, would be Jonathan Paton, but the timing isn't quite right. Paton is enjoying an extremely successful Senate career and is likely to be Senate Majority Leader next year. Paton could be forgiven for thinking that his best shot is to move into Senate Leadership and then wait until 2012 when the districts are reshuffled. That way he will have a stronger resume and she may have a more Republican District. Tim Bee went through a similar thought process when he decided to take the Senate Presidency and run against Giffords while she was an incumbent rather than challenge her for an open seat in 2006. In retrospect, the Senate Presidency was actually a net drag on Bee's Congressional chances.

So Paton has an awkward choice. Jump now, leave a successful career in order to capitalize on widespread voter angst, or spend an additional two years in preparation. My Tim Bee analogy was a good one, but Paton is a military man and CD 8 is a military district, so I'll put it in terms that he and his supporters might prefer--Grant or McClellan. McClellan was the General's General, perfect in every way except one. He wouldn't fight. Grant was opposite, never waiting for the perfect time, fighting at every opportunity. Grant's on the $50 and McClellan is a Jeopardy question.

If Congress is Paton's goal. Now is Paton's time.

Does the Trib's Demise Help the Republic?

2009-11-03T18:11:50-05:00

The Business Journal has a good story on how the closure of the Tribune might affect the Republic.

The East Valley Tribune’s demise leaves The Arizona Republic as the sole daily newspaper in the 12th-largest U.S. media market. But media and advertising experts don’t see the Gannett Inc.-owned Republic gaining on the advertising side of the equation because of the Tribune’s closure at the end of the year.

So if you are looking for a comment on the demise of the Trib and its effect on the Republic, who would be a good person to call...one guess.

Greg Patterson, EspressoPundit.com blogger and a frequent critic of the Republic, said the Republic should heed the Tribune’s death.

“The Trib’s closure is important to the Republic because both papers were on the same path; the Tribune is simply further along,” Patterson said. “The Republic doesn’t have a viable business model, either. The question is simply how many years the Republic can hang on.”

My Pick of the Week

2009-11-03T10:41:52-05:00

It's illegal to bet on elections and I don't know anything about sports, so with the exception of a short--but successful--stint at professional blackjack, I don't gamble much. But if betting on elections were legal, the Tucson City Council race would be my pick of the week.

The race should be a Democratic sweep. The Tucson City Council race features two Democratic incumbents seeking re-election and a prominent Democrat running for a long time Democratic seat. Under Tucson's Jim Crow vestige voting system, all three candidates are running city wide, so even if a candidate is trying to win a Republican Ward, he has to be elected by a majority of the entire city.

Frankly, a Democratic Sweep is still the most likely outcome. But in elections--like March Madness--it's the ability to spot the potential upsets that gets a handicapper the big bucks.

There are three factors that put the seats in play. First, there's the general dissatisfaction with the way Democrats have been running things. Nationally, that's seen in poll results on everything from the economy to health care. Locally, Rio Nuevo has gone past boondoggle and is well into disaster.

Then there's the Tucson garbage tax--remember all politics is local, but local politics is really local, and it doesn't get any more local than the garbage tax. In Tucson, Democrats complained that the tax was too high and then got into office and promptly raised it. This might be the one time where having your party designation on the ballot isn't really a good thing.

The second major factor is Proposition 200. Talk about Alice in Wonderland. Prop 200 would force the city to spend more money on police and fire protection. That's normally a Democratic push. But the Tucson Business Community isn't happy that Tucson spends so much money on touchy feely stuff and decided to force the City to spend more on police and fire in order to starve the rest of the beast. Republicans--mainly Jim Click--have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars backing the Proposition and much of that has been on get out the vote efforts. (The Star and the Goldwater Institute are both against Prop. 200.)

Democrats have countered that Prop 200 is fiscally irresponsible--that might be a good message against the proposition, but it's likely to make the whole election turn on fiscal responsibility--and after the Rio Nuevo and garbage fee debacles, fiscal responsibility is Republican territory.

Finally, You will recall that 6,000 Tea Partiers showed up at Tucson Electric Park a few weeks ago. I think it's likely that they will show up at the polls today--and it's not likely that they will be there to support the incumbents.

Even if the Tea Party crowd were predisposed toward the status quo, one thing is clear. They won't be backing Karin Uhlich.

Uhlich posted a long screed on her website in which she blasted the "Tea Baggers."

She was ultimately forced to apologize.

Democratic City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich apologized to Tucson Tea Party attendees Wednesday, after complaints that her campaign used a derogatory term that could be considered a sexual slur.

Note to Karin Uhlich--When the most logical pronunciation of your name is "You Lick" it's probably not a good idea to mock people using sexual innuendo.

Uhlich, may be in trouble, but from what sources in Tucson tell me, Nina Trasoff has a stronger opponent and may actually be more vulnerable.

So If I have to predict, I would say it's still likely that the Democrats will prevail. But if you are looking for one upset in your Pol Pool, bet agianst Trasoff.

If it were legal, I would put money on a Republican sweep. Sure, a parlay like that isn't likely to pay off, but it would pay 50 to 1 and that would make it a very good bet indeed.

I think we might see some surprises in Tucson tonight.

Tribune to Shut Down at Year End

2009-11-02T14:59:39-05:00

This item was just posted on the Trib's website.

The Tribune Newspapers will cease operations on Dec. 31, the parent company Freedom Communications said Monday.

Freedom officials made the announcement to Tribune employees Monday morning, citing the economic recession and changes in the newspaper industry that have cause many publications to close and others to file for bankruptcy protection.

Freedom, which itself is operating under Chapter 11 reorganization, had been attempting to sell the Tribune, but no acceptable offers have come forward, said Interim Chief Executive Burl Osborne.

Speaking of Spew

2009-11-02T12:26:18-05:00

Republic Reporter Shaun McKinnon has a pretty balanced article on the costs and benefits of the Navajo Generating Station. Unfortunately the picture and shrill caption that accompanies the article dramatically reduces the credibility of the entire story.

Whoever chose the word "spews" was obviously trying to create as negative an image as possible.

What's worse is that in addition to being inflammatory, the caption isn't accurate. While the plant obviously has emissions, this picture was clearly taken on a cold winter morning and the visible emissions are simply condensed water vapor--much like the contrails that you see from high altitude jet planes.

I See a Scandal EMERGEing

2009-10-29T22:08:54-04:00

Dana Marie Kennedy is challenging Sal DiCiccio for the Phoenix City Council. Normally it's tough to take on an incumbent, but Kennedy has instant credibility because she's the Director of Emerge Arizona.

Our mission is to identify, educate and inspire Democratic women who want to pursue elective office at the local and state level in Arizona.

DiCiccio for his part thinks that Kennedy and Emerge are a bit too close. In fact, it looks like Emerge has morphed into a campaign committee disguised as a non-profit. Since non-profits can take corporate contributions and since they themselves are actually corporations, the IRS doesn't appreciate it when non-profit corporations morph into campaign committees.

So DiCiccio has filed a complaint with the IRS. I'm sure Kennedy will say that the complaint is purely political, but even a glance at the packet shows that the complaint isn't frivolous. Here's a screen shot of one of the key pages.

Let's Be Friends

2009-10-29T11:40:23-04:00

Ok, I know I'm a bit behind the curve, but I'm beginning to appreciate the power of Facebook. Kyrsten Sinema gets my award for making the best use of the platform and as one of her thousands of friends I'm getting a steady stream of updates about her book tour and appearances.

On the Republican side, I think Len Munsil probably has the best organization, but John Munger is the Republican who uses the medium most effectively. He does a great job promoting events and giving a heads up about his upcoming media appearances. Naturally, David Schweikert--who was a Geek before Geeks were cool--uses the platform well. He has nearly 2,000 friends, but what I find interesting (he would say "fascinating") is that he and I have nearly 400 shared friends.

So if you are interested in politics, want to eliminate the middle man and don't already have a Facebook account, sign up for one and if you do have an account, look me up and hit me with a friend request.

Deal or No Deal?

2009-10-29T09:53:28-04:00

The Arizona Daily Star is offering a buy out. If this announcement follows the traditional pattern, employees will be offered a buy out and if management doesn't meet it's target, they will follow up with a layoff. The severence package for those who are laid off is usually arround half as generous as those who take the buy out.

Here'e the full text of the announcement.

Star Employee Announcement -
Dear Arizona Daily Star colleague,

We are announcing a voluntary workforce reduction program for Star employees who meet certain eligibility criteria. This voluntary program is available to all positions in our newsroom, with the exception of reporters. Only a limited number of volunteers will be accepted from each department.

Eligible employees will meet the following criteria:
• Regular full-time or part-time employment status, working 20+ hours each week;
• Completed 5+ full years of service for Star pension vesting;
• Qualify for the Star pension benefit plan as of Oct 31, 2009 (55+ years of age).

Eligible employees approved for the program will receive:
• A severance package that includes two weeks of pay for each completed year of service (maximum of 26 weeks) in exchange for signing a severance agreement;
• Severance paid bi-weekly for the duration of the period, less any applicable taxes or withholdings;
• Participation in the 65% government subsidy program toward the cost of COBRA for up 9 months to subsidize medical coverage, based on the elected medical plan and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) eligibility guidelines.

If we receive more than an acceptable number of volunteers in a department, we will select employees based on length of service. While we prefer to avoid reductions, it may become necessary to consider an involuntary workforce reduction if we do not receive a sufficient number of volunteers.

If any employee wishes to inquire about the program details, please contact Kelly Acevedo, VP Human Resources, at 573-4252. The deadline to submit a written application to Kelly is 5 PM on Wednesday, October 28, 2009. We will review the applications and meet with the approved employees on November 5th and 6th, with that Friday as the last day of work.

Sincerely,
John M. Humenik
Publisher & Editor

Now THAT'S a Typo. Update: Howie Responds

2009-10-28T10:29:29-04:00

Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer traded barbs at a University of Arizona forum on Constitutional Interpretation earlier this week and not surprisingly Howie Fischer who writes, like, five stories a day for the Star and Tribune was there.

Immediately after the event I got a frantic email from a friend who said that Howie falsely claimed that Scalia said he would have dissented in the landmark anti segregation case of Brown v. Board of Education. It turns out that Scalia said he would have dissented in the 1896 "Separate but Equal" case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Since it was obviously a mistake, Howie's not a lawyer and the paper issued and immediate correction I let the issue go. However it's gone national, so I thought you might be interested.

Update: Howie sent me these emails yesterday.

just for the full record if you'd like to give the full story to your readers, the version about scalia and brown v. board of education went out in an early version that the trib put online. a writethru moved about an hour later but by that point, given the nature of the internet, the thing had gone viral. so no actual print newspaper (including the trib) ran the incorrect version.

and, since i know you're always interested in how this stuff happens, i actually was monitoring the "debate" on the web which, of course, is plagued with drop outs and such. after knocking out a quick first version, i went back over the section and concluded that it was equally possible that scalia, in discussing how getting to a "right" result didn't justify court rulings. was talking about plessy v. ferguson (the original separate but equal case). that led to the writethru.

i certainly am to blame for putting the info out in the first place without going back over my tape more carefully. but in this age of getting things posted quickly -- something you know about -- sometimes things slide through.

still, as you point out, i'm doing several stories a day. so i would stack up my "error ratio" against virtually anyone else in the business.

-- howie

I then responded by asking Howie if it was OK to print his email and this was his response.

up to you whether to add my comments to your post. you're free to do so if you want. i just wanted to go beyond the simple "a correction was made" explanation (or, speaking of errors, as you wrote it, "the paper issued AND immediate correction) to show that the thing wasn't left out there til someone pointed it out.

also, just for the record, i sent an apology to scalia through the supreme court's press aide.

-- howie

Why Can't they Just be Honest?

2009-10-27T14:00:07-04:00

The real test of character is how someone handles adversity. After all, we all go through hard times, suffer set backs or make mistakes--but do we disclose our problems or try to cover them up?

The newspaper industry is famous for demanding accountability and transparency. Yet when their industry suffers hard times, they lie, spin and obfuscate in an effort to hide the real truth from readers.

Advertisers don't trust newspapers to report their circulation numbers honestly, so they subscribe to an organization called the "Audit Bureau of Circulations." Every six months, the ABC releases two circulation numbers, one for Sunday only and one for the rest of the week. Those are the audited numbers and you can see them here.

Here's what the Audit Bureau reported for the Republic.

Daily circ at The Arizona Republic in Phoenix fell 12.3% to 316,874. Sunday was almost flat (-0.8%) to 458,992.

However, here's how the Republic reported it. First they confirm that the independent audit bureau is the source.

Figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations show that average daily circulation for U.S. newspapers dropped 10.6 percent in the April-September period from the same six-month span in 2008.

Then they provide the statistics.

Sunday home delivery circulation was up 0.74 percent. Overall, Sunday circulation dropped 0.87 percent to 458,992. The Republic dropped 12.23 percent on weekdays, to 316,874.

The second part--showing a drop in both Sunday and weekday circulation--is clearly from the ABC report but what about the first statistic showing an up tick in the strange category "Sunday home delivery Circulation"? That's not in the report (at least not in the public part). That looks like an internal, unaudited spin statistic. That's the Republic's own number and you can believe it at your own risk. Yet the way the sentence is written, the number is presented as an audited number.

That's classic obfuscation. In fact, in a prospectus, it would be criminal. If that number is indeed unaudited and they are lumping it in with the audited numbers and passing it off to advertisers, they are at risk for fraud.

The advertisers have some protection at law. The readers however are at the mercy of the Republic's honesty and transparency. Unfortunately, although the paper demands these qualities in others, it doesn't demonstrate them itself..

Yes I'm Free...Free Fallin'

2009-10-26T12:34:49-04:00

The Audit Bureau of Circulation published the latest newspaper circulation numbers and I couldn't help that little homage to Tom Petty. Sorry, it won't happen again.

Here's the report and it's not pretty.

Circulation at many of the country's largest newspapers continued a steep slide as the Audit Bureau of Circulations Monday morning released the latest figures for the six months ending September 2009 -- proving yet again that the industry can't shake the dramatic declines that have taken hold over the past several years.

Here's the report for the Republic.

Daily circ at The Arizona Republic in Phoenix fell 12.3% to 316,874. Sunday was almost flat (-0.8%) to 458,992.

I'm sure we'll get a series of advertisements from the Republic in which they brag that Sunday Circulation was almost flat.

On a side note, I've been trying to cut down on a few vices and I'm choosing between giving up coffee or Schadenfreude for a couple months. Tough choice, but believe it or not, I'd rather give up coffee...so through this raging headache I will point out that the hapless Keven Willey who used to manage the Republic's editorial page and left to manage the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News faced a 22% circulation decline. This is on top of so many previous double digit declines, that the Morning News is now considerably smaller than even the shrunk down Republic.

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 316,874 -- (-12.30%)

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 263,810 -- (-22.16%)

That's Like So 2008.

2009-10-26T08:46:00-04:00

The left side of the Republic editorial board has come completely unhinged over the press conference held by Russell Pearce, JD Hayworth, Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas. They are proposing a voter initiative that would add subpoena power to the employer sanctions law, prevent cities from blocking federal enforcement measures and classify illegal aliens as trespassers.

Naturally, the Republic thinks that these are horrible ideas brought forth by horrible people. No surprises there, but the editorial had an interesting twist--the proposals should be rejected because they are bad for THE REPUBLICAN PARTY--as if the author cares about Republicans.

But they go far toward assuring that the Republican Party will further diminish its national standing, further reduce its abilities to win elections (beyond, we grant, county sheriff), and further stuff the party into a corner reserved for losers.

Ouch*.

I always find it funny when an author who hates Republicans expresses concern that part of the platform will damage the long term interests of the party.

However, I was most surprised by how out of touch the author (presumably Kathleen Ingley) is about national trends.

"Further diminish national standing"? "Stuff the party into a corner reserved for losers?" Dude, that is so 2008. Earth to Kathleen...have you seen the recent poll numbers?

No. I'm not talking about the Obama face plant--falling faster than any President of the last 50 years, I'm talking about the standard "Who do you trust more on this issue" question. Republicans now lead every issue. That's astonishing.

Republicans used to own National Security, while the Dems owned the Economy. The standard tactic has been for the parties to try to focus the election on their strength. That's why Bill Clinton did so well with "it's the Economy Stupid." If the Issue would have been Iraq, the first President Bush would have defeated Clinton handily. But now, the main issue is the economy, and guess what--Republicans own it.

Not only is the Republic's current "party of losers" perspective way off, but the "Driving off Hispanics" meme is getting stale. Ingley is reciting the well worn Democratic Shibboleth that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, so Hispanic Americans must be personally offended by efforts to curb illegal immigration.

Ok, let me shock you with a statement...When it comes to immigration, Pearce, Hayworth, Arpaio and Thomas are MAINSTREAM. In the past, when Pearce and company put their proposals on the ballot, they passed overwhelmingly. Their English Only initiative passed by 2 to 1 in PIMA COUNTY. That means there are a lot of liberal Democrats--and a lot of Hispanics--voting for stronger sanctions against illegal immigrants. In fact, I've seen polling indicating that the immigration reforms enjoy majority support among Hispanics.

Frankly, that shouldn't be too surprising. After all, the guy who has been here legally for several generations, pays his taxes, lives by the rules and speaks English as a native language doesn't necessarily consider the crowd of day laborers at Home Depot to be kindred spirits.

I would argue that the Democratic Party has more risk of alienating Hispanics. After all, the Hispanic population tends to be socially conservative and entrepreneurial. The Democratic Party has become the party of the poor, the ultra rich and the cultural elite. As more and more Hispanics move into the middle class, the party of Goldman Sachs and Roman Polanski will have less appeal for them.

So thanks for the advice Kathleen, but Republicans are doing just fine. And if you are worried that the Party is going to turn off Hispanic voters, maybe you should talk to a couple of my friends...here's a good place to start. Then check this out.

*Footnote

...further stuff the party into a corner reserved for losers.

Republicans dominate Maricopoa County. How many of them are offended by the characterization that they are a member of a Party of losers? Sure, the Republic likes to criticize candidates and ideas, but saying that the Republican Party is "stuffed into a corner reserved for losers" strikes me as poor business decision.

The Audit Bureau of Circulation numbers come out later today. Obviously, they haven't taken Kathleen's screed into account...yet. But my guess is that the numbers will show that the Republic's disdain of members of the Republican party is reciprocated.