There seems to be growing chorus of criticism from conservatives over Mitt Romney, and an increasing consensus that Romney cannot win this election.  In mid-June, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Romney as a “stolid, gaffe-prone challenger for whom conservatism is a second language”. A harsh critic of President Obama, Krauthammer recited a list of Obama’s economic policies on Fox News in early July and concluded that with all that evidence at Romney’s disposal, “If he can’t make the argument, he doesn’t deserve to win the election”. Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan questions Romney’s political sophistication and criticizes his speaking style. She recently wrote that Romney tends to “litter his speeches with applause lines,” warning Romney that he risks losing voters – “If all it is is applause lines, they’ll turn away”. Conservative pundit George Will was even more blunt, saying on last Sunday’s “This Week”: “Mitt Romney’s losing at this point, in a big way. Republicans have now nominated someone from the financial sector at a time when the financial sector is an extremely bad odor.”

Within the past two weeks there’s been a growing chorus from Romney’s fellow Republicans calling on him to release his tax returns. While Romney provided 23 years of tax returns to the McCain campaign in 2008, when he was being vetted as a possible Vice President running mate, Romney has publicly released one year’s return – 2010, in which he reported earning $22 million and paid only a 14% tax rate. Romney has promised to release his 2011 tax return “before the election”. But more and more of his fellow Republicans are calling for him to provide many more years of tax returns.

“Politically, I think that would help him. In the scheme of things politically, you know, it looks like releasing tax returns is what the people want.” – Texas Congressman Ron Paul

“I’m a big believer that no matter who you are, or what office you’re running for, you should be as transparent as you can be with your tax returns and other aspects of your life so that people have the appropriate ability to judge your background and what have you. I think anyone running for office, if they get asked within reason to give people background about what they have been doing, including tax returns, should do that. That’s my deal on it.” – Texas Governor Rick Perry

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It’s crazy. You gotta release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two.”- Conservative pundit and author Bill Kristol on “Fox News Sunday”

Is there something they’re worried about? Are they concerned that something in Romney’s tax returns would be greatly damaging to his candidacy, and if there is they want that out now, before the Republican National Convention in August?

“If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong. I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people.” – Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley

“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” – Conservative pundit George Will on ABC’s “This Week” just last Sunday

BusinessWeek’s Joshua Green speculates on just what Romney might be hiding:

Last night I had dinner with some (non-Bain) private equity executives, and I took the opportunity to quiz them on the topic and test my own theories about Romney’s tax returns. Let me emphasize that I have no idea what is in those returns, and neither did anyone I spoke with. What follows is unfounded, though not implausible, speculation. The most intriguing scenario that emerged about what could be lurking in those returns is as follows:

When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the wealthiest investors fared worse than everyone else. The “ultra-rich”—those with fortunes of more than $30 million—fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth. As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal—a safe assumption, it seems to me—the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of just 14 percent in 2010 and that estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011.

The “zero tax in 2009” theory—again, this is sheer speculation—gains further sustenance when you consider it’s the only year for which nobody knows anything about Romney’s taxes. He’s revealed what’s in his 2010 and 2011 returns, and he reportedly submitted 20-some years’ worth of returns to the McCain campaign when he was being vetted for vice president in 2008.

That would indicate that 2009 is singularly important and, if there’s anything to this theory, incredibly vexing for Romney because there’s no way he could release additional returns without including that year. And the chaos that would ensue would be bad enough that it’s probably worth enduring significant damage to avoid.

Interesting theory. And again, as the author points out – it is sheer speculation, although not implausible. But Romney could end the speculation in a heart beat by simply releasing his tax returns, which even his Republican colleagues are calling for him to do. Mitt Romney’s own father, George Romney, inaugurated the practice more than 40 years ago by releasing 12 years of tax returns. But, there is also something else that happened in 2009: The IRS announced in 2009 a partial tax amnesty for unreported foreign bank accounts, in light of the Justice Department’s criminal investigations involving several Swiss banks. Edward D. Kleinbard. a professor at Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California, speculates in an article at CNN.com:

To date, some 34,500 Americans have taken advantage of such amnesty programs. Did the Romneys avail themselves of any of these amnesty programs? One hopes that such a suggestion is preposterous, but that is what disclosure is for — to replace speculation with truth-telling to the American people.

For once I’m going to agree with Republicans – Romney should release his tax returns. It’s crazy for him not to. Unless he’s being crazy like a fox.

The infamous “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), passed by the Republican controlled House & Senate in 1996 as an election year ploy, codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional in May of this year. The Obama Administration announced last February that it would no longer defend that law is they also believed it to be unconstitutional. However, the Republican House leaders have been using the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA, and have raised large sums of money to continue defending the law. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the law’s constitutionality. Last Tuesday, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 132 House Democrats filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory and unconstitutional.  In the brief  the 132 Democratic members of Congress argued that DOMA “lacks a rational relationship to any legitimate federal purpose and accordingly is unconstitutional.”

Guess who was Missing In Action? Ron Barber. Arizona Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva signed the brief. Arizona Democratic Congressman Ed Pastor signed the brief. Arizona’s 5 Republican Congressmen didn’t sign the brief. And neither did Ron Barber. OK, there are 192 Democratic members of Congress, so that means 60 also didn’t sign the brief. As BuzzFeed explains it:

But 60 Democratic members from across the country, many representing contested districts or relatively conservative regions, did not join the brief. Not signing on to the brief, however, does not necessarily signal support for DOMA. Twenty of the 60, for example, have signed on as co-sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill pending in Congress to repeal DOMA.

OK, at least one-third of Democrats who declined to be a part of the brief stating the obvious – that DOMA is discriminatory and unconstitutional – do support it’s repeal. That would be HR116. the Respect of Marriage Act, which repeals DOMA. It isn’t going anywhere, Republican House Leaders have it boxed up in the Subcommittee on the Constitution and will never let it come up to a vote while they control things. But the Respect for Marriage Act has attracted 151 cosponsors, even including one Republican. But is Ron Barber a cosponsor? Nope. Arizona Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva is a cosponsor. Arizona Democratic Congressman Ed Pastor is a cosponsor. Arizona’s 5 Republican Congressmen aren’t cosigners – and neither is Ron Barber.

CD2 Democratic Candidate Matt Heinz has released a statement on Ron Barber’s failure to take a position on this issue:

“The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 has flagrantly discriminated against the rights of the LGBT community for the last fifteen years. Republicans legislate insufferable sentiments against our community while attempting to legitimize these laws in court. It is inexcusable for Congressman Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) to not stand in solidarity with the 132 House Democrats.

I agree with legal arguments in the House Democrat’s amicus brief that states ‘a driving force behind this law was the desire to disapprove and disadvantage gay and lesbian couples, which is not a legitimate federal interest’. We must have elected representation that will fight against the malicious intent of laws that inflict direct harm on married same-sex couples.

The Defensive of Marriage Act has limited legal defined equality for far too long.  Our nation must not tolerate this law any longer. Equality must be achieved among all Americans.”

Ron Barber voted with the Republicans in his first two votes as a Congressman. Now he fails to take a position on an issue that is core to the issue of fairness and equality in our society.

Dr. Matt Heinz is the right choice for our new Congressional District 2.

Mitt Romney touts his business experience as his best qualification for being our President. Bloomberg.com published an excellent article by Anthony Luzzatto Gardner detailing Romney’s investment strategy at Bain Capital. And Mr. Gardner is someone who actually knows what he’s talking about – he works at Palamon Capital Partners, a private equity fund based in London, and was director of European affairs in the U.S. National Security Council in 1994-95. His conclusion of Romney’s style of economics?

What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.

What’s less clear is how his skills are relevant to the job of overseeing the U.S. economy, strengthening competitiveness and looking out for the welfare of the general public, especially the middle class.

Bold emphasis is mine. Bain Capital made 67 investments under Romney’s leadership, but just 10 of these investments produced around 70% of the firm’s profits. And four of those 10 investments ended up with the company acquired going bankrupt. But even in the investments that ended in bankruptcy Bain almost always made a profit, while employees, creditors, communities, and federal, state & local governments suffered the losses. There’s a saying in Las Vegas that “the house always wins”. Under Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital was the casino and always won – usually at the cost of others.

In 1986, in one of its earliest deals, Bain Capital acquired Accuride Corp., a manufacturer of aluminum truck wheels. The purchase was 97.5 percent financed by debt, a high level of leverage under any circumstances. It was especially burdensome for a company that was exposed to aluminum-price volatility and cyclical automotive production.

Forty-to-one leverage is casino capitalism that hugely magnifies gains and losses. Bain Capital wisely chose to flip the company fast: After 18 months, it sold Accuride, converting its $2.6 million sliver of equity into a $61 million capital gain. That deal, which yielded a 1,123 percent annualized return, was critical to Bain Capital’s early success and led the firm to keep maximizing the use of leverage.

Another example of Romney’s Casino Capitalism was it’s investment in American Pad & Paper, which it acquired in 1992 by financing 87% of it’s investment. Under Romney’s Bain Capital ownership Ampad borrowed heavily to make acquisitions and pay Bain Capital $60 million in “dividends”. Ampad’s debt, which was only $11 million when Bain acquired it, rose to $444 million by 1995. The company’s annual operating cash flow was only $4.7 million, but it’s interest expense on all that debt was $14 million. Ampad did the only thing it could and went public, offering an IPO in 1996. The company used the proceeds to reduce debt – AND pay Bain $48 million for a portion of it’s stake. Over the next 6 years Bain charged Ampad over $18 million in various fees, while it ran debt back up to over $400 million. Unable to pay the interest expense of all that debt and drain of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy. Several hundred jobs were lost, secured lenders got less 50 cents on the dollar, and the hapless unsecured creditors got around 2/10ths of one cent on the dollar. But Bain Capital reaped  gains of $107 million on it’s initial investment of only $5.1 million.   Privatized Gains, Socialized Losses.

Romney’s Casino Capitalism was still rolling the dice with a winning hand when it acquired Dade International in 1994. Bain Capital more than tripled Dade’s debt of the next five years, from $300 million to $902 million. Some of the debt was used for acquisitions, but much of it was used to repurchase Bain’s equity for $242 million – more than 8 times Bain’s original investment. Dade was left in such a weakened condition with so much debt it had to file for bankruptcy in 2002. About 1,700 people lost their jobs, while Bain Capital claimed capital gains of $216 million, and eightfold return on investment.   Privatized Gains, Socialized Losses.

In another Bain investment that ended in bankruptcy, Bain purchased GS Industries and quickly ran up it’s debt. In year alone Bain forced GS Industries to pay Bain a $36 million “dividend“. Bain’s initial investment? Only $8 million. When GS Industries was forced into bankruptcy750 workers lost their jobs and most creditors lost money. And Bain had left the company’s pension plan severely underfunded, requiring the government backed U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. to step in and cover the $44 million shortfall.   Privatized Gains, Socialized Losses.

Mr. Gardner concludes:

Success, entrepreneurship, risk taking and wealth creation deserve to be celebrated when they are the result of fair play and hard work. President Barack Obama is correct in distinguishing the patient creation of value for the benefit of investors through genuine operational improvements and growth — the true mission of private equity — from the form of rigged capitalism that was practiced by some in the industry in the past when debt was cheap and plentiful.

While Bain Capital wasn’t alone in using financial engineering to turbo-charge its returns, it was among the most aggressive under Romney’s leadership. Enriching investors by taking leveraged bets isn’t a qualification for a job requiring long-term vision and concern for public welfare. It is appropriate to point that out to voters.

Mitt Romney touts his business experience as his best qualification for being our President. I say: You must be joking.

Mitt Romney isn’t the Solution.

He’s the problem.

George Romney: Made his money as Chief Executive of American Motors Corporation, building American cars in America. Popular 3 term Governor of Michigan. Strong supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. As Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Nixon, he worked hard for increases in housing developments for the poor, and for open housing to desegregate suburbs.

Mitt Romney: Made his money as a corporate raider, a pioneer in outsourcing jobs overseas. Stuffed money in to Swiss bank accounts and offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Said “Let Detroit go bankrupt!” Yeah, Mitt – there’s a lot we’d like to ask you. Mitt Romney: NOT a chip off the old block.

Subtitle: Rambling musings on a Fourth of July

There’s an old saying (often incorrectly attributed to Sir Winston Churchill): “If you’re not liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain”. Maybe I just do things bassackwards, but I was tuned out in my 20s, a conservative  in my 30s, a moderate in my 40s & 50s, and now an unabashed liberal in my 60s. My mother and Grandmother were FDR Democrats from West Virginia. My Grandmother lived with us and her room was adorned with pictures, memorabilia, and even a bust of FDR, who she revered only slightly less than Jesus. My father was a frugal Republican from Pennsylvania; I grew up in suburban Columbus Ohio. I had to pick sides early on and, well, a fella has to go with his Dad. I remember making a stovepipe hat out of paper with the slogan “Nixon’s the One!” written on it and wearing to school in 1960; I must have been in 3rd of 4th grade. I remember listening to the radio in my bed late into the night in November 1964, sure the Goldwater could come from behind and win. In 1968 Nixon, was finally the One.

I graduated from high school in the “Summer of Love”, June 1969. June 9, 1969 to be exact: 6-9-69. Yeah, we had a good laugh about that. And man, did I ever tune in and tune out. Pot, hash, LSD, mescaline, magic mushrooms. Janice Joplin, Jimi Hendrix,  The Animals, the Stones. I was arrested and spent my only night in jail in May 1970. No, not for the drugs – for violating a police order to disperse, participating in a large protest after the Kent State shootings. My mother assured me I was a disgrace to the family, the first member of the family to have ever been arrested and spent time in jail. It did get me to thinking that maybe I should consider doing a little more with my life. I drove cross country on my motorcycle to visit relatives in Denver Colorado.  My cousins and I drove out to visit some friends of theirs who had a ranch north of Craig, near the Wyoming border. I ended up helping a neighbor rancher baling some hay, and he ended up offering me a job as a live-in ranch hand. For me, a fella who grew up in the midwest watching endless Western movies on my parent’s old B&W TV it was a dream come true. Riding horseback all day, driving the cattle up to the summer pasture in the mountains. Ropin’ the calves and branding them and castrating the hapless male calves. Herding up the sheep, tagging the lambs, docking their tails, castrating the hapless male lambs. We ate a lot of Rocky Mountain Oysters. Driving the huge John Deere tractor planting wheat, baling hay, and then harvesting the wheat. I traded smoking  pot for smoking Marlboros and drinking Coors beer, and started started paying more attention to the rancher’s decidedly Conservative take on things.

 It was a bitter disappointment to my parents that I didn’t go onto college after high school like my older brother, who by now had already graduated and was teaching high school. I hadn’t for one simple reason: I had no idea what I wanted to do in life. That time on the ranch on Colorado led me to realize the one thing in life I really enjoyed was to travel, to see new places and learn new ways of life. So I accepted my parents’ generous offer of support and got my Bachelor’s degree, in Hospitality Business Management. I had to decided the best way to travel and see the world was to work in Hotel Management. My first job in hotel management was working at a casino resort in South Africa. Although now solidly conservative (I had voted for Reagan in 1980), I was fortunate that my parents instilled in me at an early age that racial prejudice comes from ignorance. Under apartheid South Africa had set up separate homelands for the country indigenous African people, calling them “Republics”, loosely based on America’s system of Indian reservations. The resort I worked at was located in one of these “Republics” with a semi-autonomous black government, so there was no Apartheid there.  I remember one of the white British ladies who also worked on the resort had a black boyfriend. It was no big deal there, but if they ever went to Johannesburg together they wouldn’t have been able to ride the same bus together, dine with each each other in the same restaurant, or even drink from the same drinking fountain. So my abhorrence of racial prejudice and discrimination was sharpened further by my experience in South Africa. Also my disdain for religion.  You see, the policy of Apartheid was based on the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church that South Africa was the “Promised Land” for the early Dutch settlers, who were the “Chosen Ones”. And God had conveniently placed all those dark skinned Africans there to be their servants, and servants should never be in the presence of those they serve unless they are serving them. People have done (and continue to do) some really stupid things in the name of religion. Still, I went to the trouble of driving to the U.S. Embassy in Jo’burg to request an absentee ballot so I could vote for Reagan’s reelection. I remember writing my sister, a Democrat, that I was disappointed in the 1984 election – I though sure Reagan would also carry Minnesota. She didn’t answer back for quite a while.

I was able to see a lot of the world and enjoy seeing new places and learning new ways of life working in hotel management. After South Africa came the Caribbean, and then Morocco, Egypt, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Hawaii, and I traveled on my own in between. The only continent I haven’t been on is Antarctica and, not a fan of cold weather, I can live with that. I lived in Honolulu for most of 90s, managing a hotel in Waikiki and then working for a Japanese hotel company. And my conservatism began to moderate. No fan of Slick Willy, I came to dislike Newt Gingrich even more. What a blubbering, egotistical idiot. And then the issue of gay marriage first came up in Hawaii, as conservatives pushed a voter referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one women. When you work in hospitality management you interact often with gay people; I had made a number of gay friends and was completely comfortable with gay people. Still, I have to admit that I didn’t get back then why  two men or two women would ever want to marry each other. But I voted against the referendum because I felt we should never make laws that exclude one group of people from the same rights and privileges that everyone else gets to enjoy. The referendum passed anyway, but I had begun my journey into the land of liberalism.

The Japanese company I worked for transferred me to Las Vegas in 1999. I went kicking and screaming at first, but a nice raise & promotion soothed the pain, and I came to enjoy it. One Saturday morning in early 2003 I was inside The Bellagio playing the slots – I’d come to have a fair amount of luck with the slots, and Saturday mornings were my luckiest times. I looked out the window across the lake to The Strip and noticed a large group of people on the sidewalk. They were protesting the war in Iraq President Bush was leading us into. I remembered a time decades before, a time when I was a teenager, a time when I also was protesting a stupid, senseless war halfway around the world. I remembered what my father told me back then – although a Republican, he was no fan of American military adventurism. He had told me: “Be very wary of gray haired old men in Washington sending young men off to fight their battles for them”. I cashed in my slot tokens and went out and joined the protest. I hadn’t felt that good – and that proud – in a very long time. I surprised a lot of my family and friends when I changed my voter registration from Independent to Democrat. I explained it to them in three simple words: George W Bush.

So now my journey is complete, I am a Democrat, and a Liberal. I believe America should use it’s military might for defense, not regime change. I believe the greatest nation on earth should not let its citizens die for lack of healthcare. I believe all Americans should be free to love and marry whomever they want. I believe women should receive equal pay for equal work, and that they should the only ones making decisions about their healthcare and their bodies. I believe children should not have to pay for the sins of their parents, and that DREAMers should get to pursue their dreams. I believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What a long, strange trip it’s been. Happy Independence Day

Readers of this blog know I was a strong supporter of Ron Barber for the CD8 special election. Ron Barber was the perfect choice for the remainder of Gabby’s elected term in office. And compared to Jesse Kelly, it was an incredibly easy choice.  But I carefully never said anything about the election of a full term in the CD2. I was leaning toward Dr. Matt Heinz in that race. He is a more progressive choice, a stronger voice for Democratic ideals. Now Ron Barber has made my choice much easier in just his first two votes as a member of Congress: I strongly support Matt Heinz as the better choice in the August CD2 Democratic primary, and for the November 6 General Election.

I think Gabby Giffords was the best Representative in Congress I’ve ever had. She didn’t always vote the way I preferred, but I always respected her, and she always carefully and thoughtfully explained her decision. And nor do I expect a Representative to always tow the party line – no one is right 100% of the time; independence and independent thinking and decision making are excellent qualities in an elected official. I didn’t like Barber’s first vote in Congress to side with the Republicans in waving environmental rules & regulations for the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the border. Yes, the illegal border crossers, the drug smugglers and drug cartels don’t care about our environment anymore than they obviously don’t care about our laws and environmental protection. But 100 miles is ridiculously too much. The cities of Tucson, Benson, Sierra Vista, and several others – not to mention Nogales and Douglas – are within 100 miles of the border. Over one and a half million Arizonans live within 100 miles of the border! And the waiver of environmental laws – including the Arizona Wilderness Act – is not needed.

I didn’t like Barber’s vote for this. Nor do I respect it. His explanation? ” This legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process“. Translation: Yeah, it’s a boneheaded bill, but an easy one for me to support and claim the cherished “bipartisanship”. And no, Mr. Barber, you don’t get to “make changes as it moves through the process”. It’s a done deal, with your vote it’s passed the House and on it’s way to the Senate. Here’s what Matt Heinz has to say on this issue:

I would have voted no because it disregards the advice of agents who work in the field. In a report released by the Government Accountability Office, 22 of 26 Border Patrol Agents-in-Charge agreed “federal land management laws had no impact on the overall security status of their jurisdiction.” Without addressing actual problems, proponents of the bill use border security for political gain by undermining valuable interagency cooperation efforts while putting our environment and historical sites at risk.

No, Mr. Barber, I didn’t like you vote on that, but I can just grumble and move on. But your vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in civil contempt is irresponsible, indefensible, and well, contemptible.You tried to have it both ways, voting against criminal contempt, but for civil contempt – which allows the Republican House to pursue this political circus through the courts. You are the only one of 435 members of Congress who voted for one and not the other. 17 Democrats and all but 2 Republicans voted for criminal contempt. 17 Democrats – and YOU – and all but 2 Republicans voted for civil contempt. As I recently blogged, this investigation has already gone on for 1 1/2 years, the Justice Department has already handed over 7,500 pages of documents and Rep. Darrell Isa and his Oversight Committee have found no evidence of any wrong doing by Mr. Holder or the Obama Administration. To the contrary, Rep. Issa has stated that be believes Mr. Holder and the Obama administration were not aware of the rogue operation begun on the Bush Administration and conducted by some ATF agents in Phoenix. But to continue the political circus in hopes of it somehow reflecting negatively on the President, Rep. Issa merrily keeps requesting more & more documents. In his statement explaining his vote Mr. Barber even says:

“I am equally disturbed that the 16-month investigation conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform appeared to be a partisan undertaking, in which requests by minority members for witnesses and hearings were rejected”.

You even acknowledge Issa’s political circus as a “partisan undertaking”, but voted to let them to pursue it???? Sorry Mr. Barber, your political pandering to try to appear “bipartisan” doesn’t cut it. Here’s what Matt Heinz had to say about your vote:

“We need to put politics aside and confront the root of the gun smuggling problem. We should be creating a clear federal mandate to crack down on gun trafficking that funnels thousands of weapons daily to violent drug cartels. This political distraction is exacerbating the problem – while the ATF has been under political attack, gun seizures in Arizona have dropped by 90 percent.

This is a politically motivated vote that will go nowhere. Barber is endorsing this distraction and inaction instead of working toward real solutions to ensure what he claims to be his top priority, actual border security.

In regards to findings in the investigation, even Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) admitted that the White House had nothing to do with this scandal; attacking the Attorney General Holder as an agent of the White House is unacceptable political posturing”.

Some actual leadership on the issue, instead of vote pandering. How refreshing. And here’s Matt’s views on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding SB1070:

“Today, the Supreme Court rendered a decision on Arizona v. United States to reaffirm the federal government’s role as primary enforcer of immigration policy. Thankfully, this decision prevents states from creating their own immigration policies in violation of the constitution while recognizing the need for cooperation between state and federal authorities in the enforcement of existing, constitutionally sound laws. Unfortunately, a portion of the law remains which continues to threaten the rights and liberties of our citizens and legal residents.

I oppose SB 1070’s reckless threat to the civil rights and liberties of my constituents and fellow Americans. “Arizonans should take advantage of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of our right to coordinate with federal agencies in enforcing immigration laws while respecting the ultimate authority of the federal government.”

You can read more of Matt’s positions on the issues at HeinzForCongress.com.

Democrats – and Independents who wish to participate in the Democratic primary by choosing a Democratic ballot – have a clear choice of who will best represent our values and ideals in a full term for Congress in the Congressional District 2. The better choice is Dr. Matt Heinz.