Hey, you’re busy—and even if you weren’t, you wouldn’t have time to waste on the cranks, wackos and clowns that have taken over the political circus.
If you’re looking for a little advice from the peanut gallery, here are our selected endorsements of candidates and propositions to help.
We decided not to make endorsements in some races, either because the result is not really in question, or we didn’t feel we had enough information to make a recommendation.
U.S. Congress, District 8:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has delivered for Southern Arizona. The much-maligned stimulus package may not have done all that was promised, but it provided enough money to ensure that the state continued to offer some degree of support to the schools, the universities, the poor people who need health-care coverage and a whole lot of others. If you need proof, check with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who is more than happy to dish out stimulus money and then take credit for it.
Giffords has supported common-sense solutions to the problems on the border. She has been a fierce advocate of investing in the high-tech jobs of the future. And she has been a strong supporter of the U.S. military, fighting for fire stations at Fort Huachuca, improvements for the Barry M. Goldwater Range and expanded services for veterans.
Just last week, Giffords delivered a $50 million federal grant to help keep Tucson cops on the streets. A few months before that, she voted for crucial dollars for Arizona’s schools and health-care programs.
Her Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, offers no support for any of those ideas. Instead, he promises to do little for Arizonans besides cut taxes for the wealthiest residents, destroy Social Security and Medicare for future generations, and stand up for oil companies that are responsible for ecological disasters.
We need someone who wants to fix government, not destroy it. Vote Giffords.
U.S. Congress, District 7:
Congressman Raúl Grijalva
Congressman Raúl Grijalva made a bone-headed move with his call for a boycott of the state in the wake of SB 1070, but we still agree with the majority of his votes, and are especially happy with his efforts to kill the environment-destroying Rosemont Mine proposal. Meanwhile, Republican opponent Ruth McClung’s platform just isn’t our cup of tea. Vote Grijalva.
U.S. Senate:
No Recommendation
There’s no way we’d endorse Sen. John McCain these days; he completely lost our respect when he went so far as to claim that he never considered himself a “maverick.” His flip-flop on badly needed comprehensive immigration reform is a disgrace—as are so many of the other actions he’s taken since veering to the right during his failed 2008 presidential run.
But we can’t endorse Rodney Glassman, either. There are serious questions about his character, and the fact that he bailed on his Tucson City Council commitment during a financial crisis to further his political ambitions has never sat well with us.
Your call.
Governor:
Terry Goddard
As we’ve said in the past: We’ll give Gov. Jan Brewer credit for championing the one-cent-per-dollar sales-tax increase that will keep the state from completely collapsing over the next three years, but she’s still the wrong choice in November, for innumerable reasons.
The biggest reason: The current crop of far-right-wing GOP lawmakers now running the Arizona Legislature is going to prevail in November, and next year, they’ll be ready to chop up the state even more than they already have. We stand on the edge of losing our investments in everything from state parks to the universities if someone doesn’t stop them—and Democrat Terry Goddard is far more likely to do that than Brewer.
Goddard may not set the campaign trail on fire, but he’s proven himself to be an able administrator who won’t be ready to throw people off transplant lists just to ensure that there’s enough money for tax cuts. Vote Goddard.
Secretary of State:
Chris Deschene
This was the toughest call we faced regarding statewide offices. Secretary of State Ken Bennett has done a decent job since taking over for Jan Brewer, and Chris Deschene has run a campaign so far that could best be described as “uninspired.”
However, we love Deschene’s resume, and should the governor resign for whatever reason, we’d rather have Deschene heading the state than a Republican who would probably support much of the insanity coming out of the Legislature.
Attorney General:
Felecia Rotellini
Democrat Felecia Rotellini tends to talk a little too much nonsense about the border, but we’ll still take her over Republican Tom Horne, who has a disturbing pattern of exploiting racial politics to advance his political career. His eagerness to fight with the federal government seems like a waste of money, and his proposal to ban ethnic-studies classes at the Tucson Unified School District strikes us as way too much Big Brother.
State Treasurer:
Andrei Cherny
Even his political opponents concede that Andrei Cherny is loaded with smarts. A former state prosecutor who dealt with financial cases, Cherny understands the complicated world of finance. And he’s moderate enough to earn the endorsement of Jim Kolbe, the former Republican congressman who is chairing the Cherny campaign.
His opponent, Republican Doug Ducey, is trying to launch a political career after expanding the Cold Stone Creamery ice cream franchise. The jury is out on whether he was a good businessman—he certainly made plenty of money, but many of his franchisees complain that they get hosed in the process—but we know he’s not that good at managing multiple accounts, because he skipped out on paying the property taxes on his own $1.4 million Paradise Valley home for years. If Ducey can’t keep track of his own books, what makes anyone think he can keep track of the state’s finances?
Vote Cherny.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction:
Penny Kotterman
Democrat Penny Kotterman is a longtime advocate for teachers who understands how the schools work, while Republican John Huppenthal is Republican lawmaker who has undermined public education at every opportunity. This may be the biggest no-brainer on this year’s ballot. Vote Kotterman.
Arizona Corporation Commission:
Dave Bradley
Democrat Dave Bradley has ably served Tucson for the last eight years in the Arizona Legislature, and we’re convinced he’d make a good addition to the Arizona Corporation Commission. The Republican candidates seeking seats on the ACC talk about their support for renewable-energy standards, but they appear to be leaning a little too much toward nuclear power. While nuclear power shouldn’t necessarily be off the table, it should not be a priority.
State Senate, District 25:
Manny Alvarez
The GOP majority at the Arizona Legislature is hell-bent on destroying all that they can in this state. Having Democratic Sen. Manny Alvarez at the Legislature makes it harder for them to do that, while having Republican challenger Gail Griffin would make it easier. Vote Alvarez.
State Senate, District 26:
Cheryl Cage
State House, District 26:
Nancy Young Wright
State Senate, District 30:
Todd Camenisch
We’ve gotten a glimpse at what Republican Sens. Al Melvin and Frank Antenori plan to do if they’re re-elected: People who are desperate for health care will suffer and die. Our schools will be starved. Our universities will be hacked to pieces. Our highways will become toll roads. Our parks will be handed off to the private sector—and good luck to any troublesome wildlife.
And on and on and on. If there’s something you care about that’s been built in this state over the last two decades, you can kiss it goodbye.
We fully grasp that the state faces a financial crisis. But the real fix is to seriously reform the tax code so that it adapts to a 21st-century economy, not to shut down everything besides the schools and then give the savings away as tax cuts for the wealthiest residents.
Here’s your alternative: In Legislative District 26, Democrat Cheryl Cage is a small-business owner who offers an alternative to Melvin that’s not driven by dogma. And in Legislative District 30, Democrat Todd Camenisch is a professor in the UA School of Pharmacy who understands better than most the importance of investing in the future and building an economy on something besides tax breaks and locked doors.
Vote for real solutions. Vote Cage and Camenisch.
We encourage you to cast only one vote in the Legislative District 26 House race: for Democratic incumbent Nancy Young Wright. Wright has been a staunch supporter of education, has a sterling record on environmental legislation and opposes efforts to strip health insurance from poor people and children. Her opponents, Rep. Vic Williams and newcomer Terry Proud, fall too easily in line with the GOP lawmakers like Melvin and Antenori.
State Senate, District 28:
Paula Aboud
State House, District 28:
Steve Farley and Bruce Wheeler
Republican Greg Krino hopes to pull off a big upset in midtown Tucson’s Legislative District 28. The normally safe Democratic territory is up for grabs this year, because the Democratic incumbent, Paula Aboud, is facing a challenge not only from Krino, but also from Ted Downing, a former Democratic state lawmaker running as an independent, and Dave Ewoldt, a former Green Party activist running as an independent.
We suggest voters support Aboud, who has reliably resisted the GOP agenda at the Capitol, over the other candidates.
While we appreciate Downing’s stated agenda of reducing partisanship at the Capitol, we fear he’s given to political flights of fancy that are not helpful to governing; meanwhile, Ewoldt’s agenda is too neo-hippie for even us. Krino would just help the GOP continue its agenda to dismantle state government.
We also endorse the Democratic team of Rep. Steve Farley and Bruce Wheeler in the LD 28 House race. While he has few victories to show in the GOP-controlled Legislature, Farley has proven himself to be an effective advocate for smarter budgeting and policy at the Capitol, while we know we can count on Wheeler to be a passionate fighter and determined deal-maker for Southern Arizona.
PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 106 (Health Care): No
Prop 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to “preserve the freedom of Arizonans to provide for their health care.” It all sounds great, but the real aim of the prop is to undermine the new federal health-care plan passed by Democrats, by saying that Arizonans can’t be required to buy private insurance.
A couple of points: State law, even a constitutional amendment, does not trump federal law, so this is just another opportunity to waste taxpayer dollars in lawsuits; if the state fights the feds, we pick up the tab for the whole thing. Secondly, the only way to make sure that we do fix our health-care system in a way that ensures that sick people get care (short of having the government insure everyone) is for everyone to have insurance, spreading the risk pool as widely as possible. Vote no.
Proposition 107 (Affirmative Action): No
Prop 107 purportedly seeks to ensure that people get promoted on the basis of merit rather than their gender or the color of their skin. It’s certainly a noble goal, but let’s face it: “Merit” is a slippery qualification in any competition, and there’s a long history of women and minorities being shortchanged.
We fear this one would have unintended consequences by, for example, stopping efforts to encourage more women to get engaged in areas such as science and technology. Also, look at the list of supporters, which includes notorious California activist Ward Connerly and state Sen. Russell Pearce. Yikes. We’re urging a vote of no.
Proposition 109 (Hunting Laws): No
Prop 109 would create a new constitutional right to hunt and fish in Arizona, and would block future propositions that could in any way limit hunting and fishing by giving the Arizona Legislature the exclusive authority to regulate hunting. We think voters have made wise decisions in this area in the past (such as a ban on the barbaric use of steel-jaw traps), so we’re not inclined to restrict our authority and amend the Constitution to placate a small special-interest group. Vote no.
Proposition 110 (State Trust Lands): Yes
Prop 110 would ask voters to approve certain types of land swaps related to state trust lands. We’ve been skeptical of previous efforts to approve land swaps, because the state always seems to come out on the short end of the deal, but this proposal has a number of protections built into it, including giving voters the final say on any swaps. It has widespread support, ranging from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the Sierra Club. Vote yes.
Proposition 111 (Secretary of State/Lieutenant Governor): No
Prop 111 would change the title of secretary of state to lieutenant governor, to make it clear that the office-holder becomes governor if the governor leaves office early.
We like that idea; we agree that many voters don’t think about the possibility of succession when they vote for secretary of state. However, we fear the possibility of unintended consequences with this initiative—namely, that it may prohibit independent candidates from running for governor or secretary of state. The initiative says that “each nominee for the office of governor shall run on a ticket as a joint candidate in the general election with the nominee for the office of lieutenant governor from the same political party as the nominee for governor.”
Critics such as conservative Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb have pointed out that Prop 111 could preclude independents from running for the office, because they’re not members of political parties. (It should be noted that supporters of the initiative say that interpretation is wrong, and that independents are considered to be members of a de facto “independent” party, but we’re not buying that argument—or the suggestion that it could be fixed later by the Arizona Legislature.)
Vote no.
Proposition 112 (Petition Deadlines): Yes
Prop 112 would push back the deadline for submitting petitions for an initiative campaign from four months before an election to six months before an election. Given the amount of signature-gathering shenanigans that have been going on, it makes sense to give election officials more time to review the petitions that get turned in, and give the courts more time to sort out challenges.
Proposition 113 (Union-Organizing Elections): No Recommendation
Prop 113 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that union-organizing elections be conducted with a secret ballot. The proposition would attempt to counter any effort at the federal level to pass “card-check” legislation that would allow unions to form if enough workers sign paperwork saying they want to organize.
If passed by voters, Prop 113 could end up in federal court should Democrats in Congress ever pass card-check legislation, which has stalled in Washington, D.C.
We’re big supporters of secret ballots, but these days, we’re even more skeptical of the business interests that are behind this one.
Proposition 203 (Medical Marijuana): Yes
Prop 203 would legalize medical marijuana for seriously ill patients who register with the state and get a doctor’s recommendation. Dispensaries would face a variety of regulations. If smoking a little pot makes sick and dying people feel a little better, they shouldn’t have to break the law to do it. Don’t buy into the ridiculous scare tactics being pushed by the opponents of this measure. Vote yes.
Proposition 301 (Elimination of Land Conservation Fund): No
Prop 301 would eliminate the Land Conservation Fund created by voters more than a decade ago, and give the roughly $123 million remaining in the fund to lawmakers in order to balance the budget. We’re tired of seeing lawmakers swipe money from every pot they can get their hands on instead of seriously addressing the state’s broken tax system. Vote no.
Proposition 302 (Elimination of First Things First): No
Prop 302 would eliminate the First Things First program, which funds early childhood development and health programs, and use the estimated $324 million in the fund to help lawmakers balance this year’s budget. Future revenues for the fund, which come from an 80-cent-a-pack cigarette tax, would also be turned over to lawmakers to be used at their discretion.
As we said with Prop 302, we don’t like the idea of allowing lawmakers to swipe funds, especially since the same folks who want to grab the money want to turn around and give away huge tax breaks to the rich. Vote no.
Proposition 400 (Tucson Sales Tax Increase): Yes … Barely
Prop 400 would increase the sales tax inside the Tucson city limits by a half-cent per dollar for five years, bringing the combined city, state and transportation sales tax to 9.6 cents on every dollar.
We’re not thrilled about the idea of raising sales taxes inside the city limits; these are tough times, and it’s hard to ask everyone to pay a little more. We also hate the fact that this could put city businesses at a big disadvantage when compared to businesses in unincorporated county areas.
But the reality is this: The city has seen its revenues drop by at least $69 million since 2007, and there are more troubles on the horizon. The City Council continues to whittle away at the budget, but it’s still facing a $50 million shortfall next year. We’re already dropping support for festivals, arts programs, sports programs and many other amenities that help improve Tucson’s quality of life.
Unless we want to give up on street repairs and drastically cut back on police and fire protection, we have to support Prop 400. Vote yes.
Proposition 401 (Tucson City Charter Amendments): No Recommendation
There’s much to like about Prop 401. It would amend the Tucson City Charter, which serves as the “constitution” of the city and sets the powers and responsibilities of the Tucson City Council.
The changes would grant the mayor equal powers to council members; move all city council elections to the same year beginning in 2013; reduce the civil-service protections of department heads; and raise the annual salaries of council members from $24,000 to roughly $61,000, and the mayor from $42,000 to $76,600. (Future pay raises would be pegged to the pay of county supervisors, whose salaries are set by state lawmakers.)
We can live with most of this; the city manager should have the power to manage his staff, and the mayor should have as much power as council members. Council members probably should make more money.
But we’re stopping short of endorsing Prop 401, because we don’t like the idea of scrapping the staggered elections. If all the council members are elected the same year, that means special interests just need to dump a bunch of money into an independent campaign once every four years to buy the council—and the voters will have little recourse to change direction until another four years have passed.
This article appears in Oct 7-13, 2010.
Apparently, The Weekly does not consider attendance an issue with their endorsed State Senate Candidate Paula Aboud. She missed half of her roll call votes in 2009. Anyone else who missed work half the time would have been fired.
The gates of the schoolyard
are padlocked and chained
to keep all the children in out of the rain
the art teacher’s preaching
the virtues of pastel shades
you pay no attention but it won’t hurt you grades
’cause your painting by numbers
connecting the dots
they don’t have to tell you
you don’t call the shots
you jump when they say jump
and you don’t ask how high
’cause painting by numbers [you] know you’ll get by
painting by numbers [you] know you’ll get by
-James McMurtry
Have you even visited Dave Ewoldt’s website? Have you listened to a word he has said?
“Ewoldt’s agenda is too neo-hippie for even us” — apparently NOT!
I’ll save you the time with the Google machine:
http://daveforarizona.org/html/issues.html
http://daveforarizona.org/html/sustainabil…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/water.html
http://daveforarizona.org/html/jobs_econom…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/education.h…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/border_issu…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/summary.htm…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/what_is_rel…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/where_are_w…
PLEASE, please, please DO YOUR DARN HOMEWORK!
Now that I’ve supplied the links for you it wouldn’t take much longer to actually analyze the platform than it does to come up with your sophomoric. snarky comments to cover your obvious ignorance of what Dave Ewoldt’s campaign is all about.
Mostly right-on choices. Two of the most important endorsements are Cage and Comenisch. They both are in swing districts that have two of the most extreme senators in the legislature currently.
Also, that’s not altogether fair to point out Aboud’s missed votes. There were a lot of shenanigans the majority party pulled to deliberately obstruct her (and other democrat) votes. Stating the session was over, then when they left calling for a vote. Secret votes in the dead of the night…as lingers they had a quorum they could and did play fast and loose with voting. It was dirty and underhanded. Instead of calling Aboud out on this–you should be focusing on those who cheated her…
The fact that you endorse Aboud because she fights the Republicans doesn’t get us anywhere. This is the gridlock that has gone on for years and the Democrats and Republicans come back and ask for our support based upon their “fighting.” We must change and Aboud isn’t the change we need. I would like to know and understand the criteria of judgement you used in selecting her as the person who would represent us the best? Same old, same old, it seems to me. One thing for sure, IT ISN’T WORKING!!!!
wow! The Tucson Weekly ought to think about endorsing a Democrat or two. I think their choices are extremely biased.
While generally pleased and hardly surprised by your endorsements, I’m puzzled and disappointed that in LD30 you have not endorsed anyone for the State House. Absent yours, here’s my recommendation: Andrea Dalessandro has proven, in her two runs for the House, to be more knowledgeable about the issues facing the state than many, probably most, incumbents, and clearly stands head and shoulders in this regard above the current duo, Gowan and Vogt. While less obnoxious than their running mate, appointed Senator Antenori, they share his people-be-damned attitude toward governance, never seeing a tax that shouldn’t be cut nor a regulation that shouldn’t be eliminated. Their mantra of ‘eliminate government and jobs will come’ is absurd. Andrea is a hard-headed, not hard-hearted, realist, a centrist and a problem solver. Antenori for the State House. Sound policy over politics. Cast just one vote for LD30 House: Andrea Dalessandro.
GABRILLE GIFFORDS, TERRY GODDARD, ET AL…POVERTY PIMPS…at the taxpayer expense!
It will be obvious to the observant reader that in my endorsement of Andrea Dalessandro for the State House in LD 30, I had a senior moment when, instead of ‘Andrea for the State House’ I wrote another name beginning ‘An’. Let it be a double recommendation: send Frank home and Andrea to the House!
Having Andrea Dalessandro in the house and Todd Camenisch in the senate will give LD 30 voters sensible representation and leaders who will move Arizona forward in terms of education and jobs. They understand that the economy is closely tied to education and they’re fiscally responsible enough. Very glad you endorsed Camenisch; wish you included Dalessandro.
Looks like Cherny wasn’t smart enough to prevent his business license from being revoked: http://www.espressopundit.com/2010/10/i-ha…
Good call on Sen. Aboud she deserves to be re-elected and we need here there. The Republicans pulled all kinds of tricks when it came to votes and delayed and delayed until they had the votes to pass bills without any consideration as to following a real schedule. Sen. Aboud was a real voice for thos who had none.
Re: “…we can’t endorse Rodney Glassman…”
SERIOUSLY?
Even without the points in Rodney’s favor, it seems the Weekly would endorse anyone who might end the McCain Reign.
So what about the race in Dist 29 in the house? Two Dems and one Repub. Of course, I do recommend Matt Heinz and Daniel Patterson. They fought long and hard against those idiots up there. Give them another shot at it.
A vote for Krino or Aboud is a vote to continue dysfunctional business where the Republicans and Democrats tell you they will improve things and then don’t. A vote for Downing gives Southern Arizona something different – the State’s first nonpartisan Senator and the beginning of the end of the politics of hate and fear. The people will no longer be duped by things like “I will protect you” “I will fight for you” – That is just as insulting to intelligence of the university community as her insults last Monday.
Krino is endorsed by Russell Pearce.
Aboud is the ranking Dem on the appropriation committee – and ask yourself – how is Arizona doing under her leadership, if you can call it that. She is not even effective enough to get invited into the room when the budget is being done. And a few years ago, when she was invited in, it was because Napolitano, NOT Aboud, was negotiating the budget.
Being “PRO” and ineffective adds up to a big ZERO. Whining that the Republicans are bad meannies, adds up to ZERO. Being Voted “most effective” by special interest groups like the League of Cities only tells who owns her!
Mr. Goldwater,
Your response to Ms. Aboud’s missed votes demonstrates her lack of effectiveness as a legislator. The fact that there may have been “shenanigans or secret votes” pulled by the majority party means that the majority played their chess game effectively. Simply, Ms. Aboud was oblivious and did not gather the political intelligence necessary to respond, therefore she cheated herself. There is absolutely no excuse for her voting record.
Great to see your opposition to Prop 109–it’s an awful, legislature-issued proposition that will take voting rights away from Arizona citizens and is a power grab by politicians. Management of wildlife would no longer be based on scientific expertise, but on partisan politics. Today the power grab is directed at wildlife. Tomorrow, it could be any other subject. That’s why I’m voting NO on 109.
I would have to say that I agree with most of your endorsements, but I just don’t get how you could endorse someone who’s missed so much work? As bubby said Aboud missed HALF her votes in 2009 and she hasn’t gotten nearly as much done as Ted Downing did, when he had that seat.
She doesn’t appreciate that the voters elected her to work for THEM. The only way to let her know that it’s not enough for her to be a Democrat, is to vote her OUT….
I am excited to be supporting Ted Downing. I wonder if Aboud’s supporters are actually excited, when there’s nothing to be excited about?
Ted Downing wants to represent his ALL of his constituents, REGARDLESS of party affiliation, NO OTHER candidate in that race can say that.
http://www.facebook.com/votedowning
Zookeeper,
You got it!!!
I couldn’t agree more, wow! Thanks for helping us put it into words…
The bottom line is this.
If someone misses about half of work in a year, they either don’t like their job, have other things to tend to that need more attention or they don’t believe they’ll lose their job, so they just keep performing inadequatly.
Your call on Prop. 107 is right on! Well done!
This truly relates to me. I have a desire to start as a Center for the Phoenix Suns. Well, I’m only 6′ tall, and I can’t really shoot outside very well, or inside for that matter. My board attack is pretty weak, too. Oh yeah, and my ball handling skills are atrocious. In fact, I would be one of the last picked, in a pick-up game. But hey, what’s all this about “merit” anyways? I WANT to be a center, so if I whine often, and loud enough, shouldn’t the Suns organization be FORCED to employ me? Why should I be penalized because my mom made made me come home at night and study, while the junior gang-bangers were spending all night playing hoops? Merit schmerit. Gimme gimme. I’m entitled!
You can’t make a recommendation in the US Senate race? Truly? Does John McCain have to stomp a puppy to death on live TV before you see him for what he truly is? This man inflicted Sarah Palin on the world. For that alone, he should be sentenced to a gulag in Siberia for the rest of his life.
I cannot name one single thing he ever did that benefited the state of Arizona. I can’t think of a single politician, other than the equally repulsive John Kyl, that care less about the people of the state they supposedly represent. His soul was bought and sold a long time ago by Corporate interests and his insatiable lust for power. I don’t believe McCain has a micron of honor, integrity or honesty in his entire being.
Nothing Rodney Glassman has ever done could possibly compare to the incredible harm McCain has gleefully wrought on the non wealthy citizens of our state. Your attitude seems to be “Better the devil you know…” I could not disagree more, and I am appalled at this non recommendation. You had the opportunity to truly educate your readers about this sorry excuse for a man, let alone a politician.
I thought most of your endorsements were well thought out, but you blew this one big time.
As I read through the Oct 7 Weekly Election Endorsements, I scrolled down to LD 30, which is my district. I was glad to see that the Weekly endorsed Todd Camenisch for Senate in LD 30, as he is a strong candidate and will do much for the state. Antenori has proven to be fiercely anti-education and out of step with Arizona’s needs and should definitely be removed from public office.
However, I was disappointed to see that your staff had completely skipped the important LD 30 House seat which has Andrea Dalessandro as a highly qualified Democrat, running against Republicans Gowan and Vogt. These two Republicans running are in lock-step with Antenori in their efforts to damage Arizona’s infrastructure and harm our most vulnerable populations. ( the Weekly did run an article 9/23/10 on this race)
Ms. Dalessandro ran a close race in 2008 for this same office; with her background in accounting and education she brings skills and perspective badly needed in our AZ Legislature. As there are two open seats for House LD 30, a *single* vote for Andrea Dalessandro will weigh even more heavily; supporters should be aware that they should not vote for either of the other 2 candidates to increase Ms. Dalessandro’s chances of being one of the two top vote recipients.
I sent a shorter version of the following as a letter to the editor, which I’ve been told will appear in the next issue.
My relocalization platform is neo-hippie? Democracy, conservation, putting Main Street before Wall Street, requiring corporations to assume their responsibility to help maintain the amenities they benefit from and clean up their messes, funding an educational system that prepares our youth for rapidly changing times, and a practical, scientifically based plan to make Arizona a global leader in sustainability and the new economy instead of fodder for late-night comedians is neo-hippie?
The International Energy Agency says we’re “running out of time” and “forecast a depleted energy supply in the next decade.” They then connect the most obvious of the dots: “Energy availability underpins economic growth, and without the opportunity for future repayment of debt the financial system as we know it could stop working.”
The recent Bundeswehr report by German military analysts acknowledges Peak Oil and points to a likely reduction in standard of living that might render societies less stable and make them more attracted to extremist political positions. Investment will decline and debt service will be challenged, leading to a crash in financial markets, accompanied by a loss of trust in currencies and a break-up of value and supply chains–because trade is no longer possible. This will lead to the collapse of economies, mass unemployment, government defaults and infrastructure breakdowns, ultimately followed by famines and total system collapse.
The Pentagon’s Hirsch Report concludes that it will require at least two decades to put an alternative energy infrastructure in place IF we start before peak occurs. It is now generally accepted that peak in conventional liquid fuels occurred between 2005 and 2008. Supply is now 5% below demand, and the Obama administration predicts this gap will increase to 10% by 2015.
The world’s top climate scientists say we no longer have the luxury of merely discussing whether or not we should make changes, but must start lowering greenhouse gas emissions TODAY. We must start immediately heading down toward 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, not fervently pray that things will somehow be OK if we allow it to increase to 450 ppm, considering the calamities already occurring from allowing it to reach 390 ppm.
Does the Weekly consider all the above to be neo-hippie organizations and individuals? Are you aware of any other elected official or candidate that is offering ANY type of Plan B? The only “solutions” I’ve heard are minor attempts to mitigate the worst of the damage, doing even more of what created this mess, or pointless deck chair reshuffling.
It seems what you’re really saying is that you know you can neither counter nor refute my arguments on issues or my pragmatic responses to them, so you’re reduced to childish ad hominem attacks. What specific part of my platform do you consider to be unrealistic, other than the Powers That Be simply say, “We won’t allow that”?
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t be too wise to continue ignoring the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, increasing biospheric toxicity, our increasing body burden and disease rates, depletion of global fisheries, increasing desertification, dwindling fresh water supplies, topsoil loss, ocean acidification and growing dead zones, and the growing wealth gap as the middle class disappears.
Since the majority of Americans agree we must start addressing these critical issues now, the Weekly clearly demonstrates it is so far out of touch with reality it’s difficult to find the words to adequately describe it. It seems that not only has critical analysis become a lost art, but so has the ability for independent thought. This is a clear dereliction in the duties of the Fourth Estate.
Is it really the Weekly’s opinion that Arizonans don’t deserve better, or just that they aren’t capable of better? I disagree on both counts.
Beyond that, I’m really not sure what else to say, or a different way to frame it, that might make my platform more understandable, and why it is so urgently necessary. The alternative I’m proposing, relocalization, which includes steady-state economics and moving toward sustainability by using the same natural systems principles healthy, vibrant and resilient ecosystems have been successfully using for billions of years, presents a practical, affordable and comprehensive plan that addresses the roots of our current crises. While it may not be possible to totally stave off the coming collapse brought on by our failing system–considering how far down that path we already are–relocalization provides the only realistic plan I’m aware of that can provide, at the very least, a foundation for a democratic, equitable and sustainable future where coming generations at least have some positive possibilities to begin rebuilding.
Provided, of course, that we don’t continue to make things worse by continuing to support the status quo, or remain content to think that slapping a band-aid on a symptom here and there will be good enough. People across the political spectrum agree we must become sustainable, and even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a speech on Oct. 4, 2010 to the Annual Meeting of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, said the current trajectory of government finances is unsustainable and that the U.S. is on the brink of a financial disaster.
The best advice the Tucson Weekly can offer is to carry on with business as usual? Isn’t the role of an alternative paper to provide information and views not covered in the corporate mainstream press? Well, at least we have the New Southwest to fill the void for an alternative paper in this town.
Prohibition, highly restrictive zoning, and other high restrictive regulations of marijuana are inappropriate.
Despite immense institutional hostility and prejudice, over 20,000 peer-reviewed medical studies document that marijuana is safer than any common over-the-counter medicine, safer than aspirin, safer than Tylenol, far safer than alcohol, far safer than any drug I prescribe. Cannabis reduces pain, nausea, and wasting, but research also suggests curative effects in a variety of medical conditions.
As far back as 1988, after an extensive review of the research, the DEA’s own chief administrative judge Francis L. Young concluded: “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known.” The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found similarly. The DEA ignored the research then and ignores the research still. In 2010, at least 15 double-blind crossover studies, the Gold Standard of research, are among the 20,000 studies showing the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis and NO evidence it causes cancer—by far more supportive research for marijuana than any drug ever approved by the FDA! In 2009, forced by the overwhelming weight of research evidence, the American Medical Association overcame its previous hostility to support “that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.” The supportive 2010 University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Report to the Legislature is available online.
Primarily because of irrational marijuana laws, America has more people behind bars per capita than Red China! The current black market status of marijuana denies patients safe access to a useful medicine, but profits only drug cartels, the prison industry, and wastes enormous law enforcement resources, your money. We can no longer afford to keep such a safe and useful drug illegal. Oppose “Reefer Madness” Prohibition. Vote YES ON 203.
And when the Medical Marijuana Initiative passes, I urge public servants to advance, not thwart, the will of the people.
I agree that Dave Ewoldt has excellent ideas. In fact, he is right-on! It’s a shame these ideas are considered too “neo-hippie” for the Weekly (or anyone else). This is the direction our state/the country needs to head. I’ll repost the links provided by J.T. Waldron below. Thanks!
http://daveforarizona.org/html/issues.html
http://daveforarizona.org/html/sustainabil…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/water.html
http://daveforarizona.org/html/jobs_econom…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/education.h…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/border_issu…
http://daveforarizona.org/html/summary.htm…
LD28 AZ State Senate race with:
Paula Aboud, Ted Dowing, Greg Krino and Dave Ewoldt
My letter about the LD28 Senate race, was provoked by a lie being spread by party insiders, here in Tucson.
The lie is that a vote for Ted Downing is that a vote for Greg Krino. This is not true.
A vote for Ted is a vote for Ted. If you believe he is the best candidate, vote for him, that’s what a democracy is about. It’s not a three way race with the third person coming in hundreds of thousands of votes behind, but taking from one of the two major candidates. It’s really a three way race with Greg Krino trailing.
Why does Paula always have to resort to dirty politics? Why can’t she just allow people to look at the candidates and make their own choice? I will tell you why, because she’s scared. She’s scared that if voters realized the really poor job she’s doing, showing up to vote only 50% of the time, even though our tax money is paying her for full-time, they wouldn’t even consider voting for her. Even though her job was less than satisfactory, she fights ugly til the bitter end, resorting to mailers filled with lies blatant, mean spirited lies!
So, is Tucson going to let her sit there for four more years working Part-time, being paid to work Full-time?
When Ted represented LD28, he worked really hard for us, instead of working hard assassinating someone’s good character, for votes.
The Ted that Paula talks about is a fictional character, made up by people who just want to WIN at all costs, even if it costs the voters a voice.
Doesn’t the party want what’s best for Tucson? Or have political parties become like the mafia, standing together, even when people break ethical and moral codes?
I would NEVER vote for Aboud. And, if THIS is the way the Pima County Democrats operate here in Tucson, I’m changing my party affiliation to Independent, effective immediately…
Thank you Ted Downing and every other politician who have stood up to those who play dirty and still win.
I’m hoping for Tucson’s sake, that this is not one of those times!
Democrat – LD28
Consider voting this time!