It is time to set the record straight. I manage the campaign calendar for Senator Antenori, Representatives Gowan and Vogt – the LD-30 State slate. No notice, no invitation, no email, no phone call was received by any of these candidates.
This appears to be a clear attempt to set up these individuals and other Republican candidates as “No Shows”. Had the LD-30 slate received an invitation and the schedule had no conflict, THEY WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE INVITATION AND WOULD HAVE ATTENDED, whether LD-30 voters were there or not.
This ”No Show” at the forum appears to be a set up supported by the media and a great disservice to those who attended. Was the audience told that these folks were not invited? If not, this was a fraud. Very sloppy reporting, Maria.
When you look at Tom's body of work on the Weekly, you easily can determine that he is a left kind of guy and not a balanced journalist - pardon me, an opinion writer. It is abundantly clear that his article was an attempt to ridicule and minimize both Brewer and Antenori - it is a good bill and a fair bill - Antenori was looking out for us. By the way, Antenori entered the legislature in January 2009 and proposed the "keep municipalities honest yellow light bill", or whatever it was called, while in the State House in early 2010, before being appointed to the Senate to replace Jonathan Paton, who resigned to run for Congress.
I don't know what it is about the Tucson Weekly, but it seems to take the left side of all issues - hum!
Antenori was clear, balanced, and supported by the facts. The people on the panel have a definite left lean, just look at their body of work. I for one have about had it with the media purporting to be balanced and telling only one side with only one set of opinions. Antenori not only speaks for me, but for a vast majority of his district.
Jim Nitzel, Red Star, and John Paradox appear to not know that Mr. Antenori was responding to a question on the topic. He clearly explained the Federalist papers and how the Federalist papers were the foundation of the Constitution - he was very accurate. He actually provided a civics lesson to the Representative who asked about the nuclear bomb. Listening and watching the entire video clearly shows that in the exchange, Antenori was the very balanced person he is and his grasp of the tenth amendment is strong.
Instead of making fun, pay attention and learn something - this includes you, Jim Nitzel, with your provocative headline that intentionally misleads. We know how balanced as a reporter you are - not!
While it appears that Sandy Bahr has a lot to say, Sandy really needs to read her U.S, Constitution, so that what she says is accurate. Anyone who knows and has studied the Constitution finds what Sandy says about the unconstitutionality of the light bulb bill laughable.
Sandy in this Republic, federal law only trumps state law if the federal law is authorized under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and the few additional amendments providing addition enumerated powers to the federal government. Jim Nintzel should also know this - seems he doesn't as well.
Often the federal government invokes Article 1, Section 8 under the "commerce clause", but in this case the commerce clause does not apply. No interstate commerce is intended under this bill.
I really hope that when a website claiming to provide information, provides information, it is accurate information.
Sandy must be a product of our public school systems where they stopped teaching the U.S. Constitution some time ago. Her assumption that the federal government is superior to the state governments is seriously flawed. When the states formed the federal government they ceded it with LIMITED powers and reserved in the Tenth Amendment all powers not specifically ceded.
The real story, left unreported here, is that the federal government just does not have the authority to dictate to me, an Arizonan, how I light my home and if I choose to avoid mercury filled, hard to dispose of, if broken a toxic event exists light bulbs, I will.
Great reporting Jim. You left out the part that Frank Antenori received 92% of the first round vote - 71 of 77 votes. This in any election is an expression of overwhelming support, and it seems newsworthy, so I am curious why you did not report this result?
Okay Jim, now that you have told us how wonderful this operation was and what a loss it is, perhaps you could provide some specific examples on just how Arizona materially benefited from this group.
You also somehow failed to mention that the Fund was used by our previous governor as a slush fund to assist those who supported her.
If this is so wonderful, then why can't it continue without match funding from the State?
Antenori looked at what it delivered and how it was used and then looked at the state treasury and the budget and make a priority, results based choice to eliminate it.
You see Jim, Antenori knows that unlike the bible where Moses could tap a rock for water, you, and Frank Antenori cannot tap a rock to make dollars available to spend.
The fiscal conservatives in this State, which you are apparently not one of them, know that only spending what you have and not adding to the tax burden in a down economy is the smart play. Choices had to be made, and Frank Antenori, a rising star in the State, routinely makes the tough choices and the smart plays for the State.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation