Let me see if I have this right: When asked about the big picture, Colonel (Ret.) McSally's answers veer into particulars. When asked about such particular items as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, she answers that the immigration system as a whole needs to be addressed. And of course she disagrees with whatever President Obama has done and it has all been done in view of an election.
In a real world -- are we living in one? -- to say "I prefer that these things go through Congress, even though Congress is dysfunctional" seems like saying it's better that nothing be done rather than something positive be done in an irregular manner by someone with whom I'm bound to disagree.
And why would she want to become a member of a dysfunctional Congress anyway?
Still not ready for prime time.
I'm a little confused. This story has Tom Prezelski's name at the top and Tom Danehy's byline. So who wrote it and if it was Tom P, why not just give him the byline.
As to the content, I'm disappointed that little effort seems to have been expended in trying to discover why Barber has cast the votes that have served little positive purpose, unless of course in giving him bipartisan credibility for his ongoing effort to work with the House majority. On the issue of progressive candidacies, should we not remember that old CD8 was and current CD2 is moderate to conservative territory in which moderate [by today's standards] Republican Jim Kolbe won handily for 22 years and moderate Democrat Gabrielle Giffords won three times and has been succeeded by another moderate Democrat. As I've been telling friends for years, Raul Grijalva couldn't win this district.
I'm not sure how Jeff Latas got dragged into this essay, but in 2006 he was a non-factor and a bore as a candidate, with his impenetrable power point presentation and total lack of charisma. Latas hope Jeff will not again attempt to run.
All in all, sort of strange little essay.
The Arizona Education Network and the state's Democratic Party share a concern for the adequate education of our young people for life in the 21st century, together with a belief that the public schools, from kindergarten through university graduate schools, are the institutions in which most of Arizona's students are going to be educated. Somehow our recent legislatures, with heavy Republican majorities, and our largely self-educated Governor, have not seen fit to protect and strengthen the investment made over many decades in public education. Indeed, they have done the opposite, cutting billions from state spending for education.
Don't mean to hog this space but can't help musing about our junior Senator's mind change on ENDA. Within a few days he went from attempting to prevent it being debated to voting 'aye' after what I would call cosmetic changes. Does anyone have a photo of him standing outside the Capitol with a moist index finger held aloft to check the breeze?
Do the Republican losers in the City Council elections plan ever to concede, or is that asking too much?
Regarding ENDA, I wonder why CD 2 wannabes would doubt its value, its reasonableness, its apparent necessity in order to outlaw some forms of discrimination against their fellow Americans. Martin hasn't read the proposed legislation but is confident it's not necessary, is best left to the states and after all, we've got the Constitution. And he's a white male of a certain age who perhaps sincerely believes nobody in this country is treated any less fairly than he has been. McSally says now she was a brand new candidate when she responded to the Center for Arizona Policy survey in 2012 and would have to review it to know whether she'd still answer the same way. Go for it, Colonel. Review and let us know what you think now. Now in 2013, after 22 months of non-stop campaigning, she's saying: ""I'm sure there are state and local laws at some level that make sure there is no employment discrimination regardless of what the issue is. So what I would ask is, legally, what gap is this filling that is not already in existence?" Seems to me that's saying she still hasn't done her homework and in the last sentence I've quoted doesn't even make grammatical, much less legal, sense. I can hardly wait to read what the latest entry in the race, Shelley Kais, has to say about ENDA. Stay tuned.
Let's see now, do I have it right? Jeff Flake sought election to what we used to consider the world's greatest deliberative body -- that's the U. S. Senate in case you wondered -- in order to vote twice in his first session to not deliberate two of the most serious issues to come before that body this year. That would be the attempt to discuss bringing some sanity to our national firearms policy, which he helped stifle and the effort to outlaw employment discrimination against GLBT Americans, which will be debated over his 'nay' vote. Almost makes one wish we had one-year terms for senators.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation