I’ll bet that many professional political consultants or MSM political reporters see Arizona as one big population center (metro Phoenix) surrounded by a series of outlying, secondary places (Tucson, Yuma, Flagstaff).

If we asked them “What pops into your mind when you hear the name “Tucson,” I wouldn’t be surprised to hear responses like this:

• Home of the sherrif who gave a whole new meaning to the word “civic pride.” On a night when the whole world was listening to him, he chose to refer to his home state as “a mecca for intolerance and bigotry.”
• Home of the newspaper that, after it heard what the sherrif did and when he chose to do it, chose to stick up for him and second what he’d said. (And this was AFTER the Arizona Republic, which probably thought that SOMEBODY in the local media should rebuke the sherrif for grandstanding at a time when his city (and the state, nation and the world) looked instead for dignity and wisdom, apparently felt that it had to do the job itself.
• The town whose high school students…well, certainly can’t be criticized for being complacent and disinterested.
• Has a popular river called the “Rio Nuevo.”

Nevertheless, we do find ourselves in the midst of a competitive GOP presidential primary. (As I type this, Rick Santorum is winning Colorado AND Minnesota AND Missouri.) There are plenty of GOP votes in southern Arizona, for candidates who are willing to work for them.  A candidate who creates a big splash in Arizona might start a wave that carries him to Super Tuesday, one week after our primary.   Arizona has six cities in the top 100 of population nationwide, according to the 2010 census. Only one—Tucson—is outside the metro Phoenix area.

So, will the GOP presidential candidates shape a message that speaks to the needs of southern Arizona, or just metro Phoenix? Will the MSM drive their rental cars further south than Sky Harbor airport, to see if all the loathing comments they hear about Tucson in the checkout lines at NYC or DC Whole Foods are fair or not?

We’ll see.

Starting this week, the commander, staff and garrison of Fort Buckley (me, myself and I) will focus as much effort on the GOP primary as the pre-schooler, honey-do list and spring semester courseload will allow.

I’ve already contacted the four GOP presidential candidate’s campaigns, introduced myself and asked them to engage with me and the readers of TucsonCitizen.com. I’ve asked them to explain why southern Arizonans should vote for them. As I get those responses from the campaigns, I’ll post them for your comment. Then, we can all judge which (if any) of the campaigns can tell the difference between Tucson and Tempe.

As of Sunday, here’s what a few Google searches told me:

• Only one of the four campaigns—Mitt Romney’s— has publicly identified people who are focused on Pima County. (Ed Parker and David Hoefferle).  The Gingrich and Paul campaigns have state-wide coordinators—-Lisa James for Gingrich, Shawn Dow for Paul.  I couldn’t find any Arizona representatives for Rick Santorum.
• I didn’t see any Tucson events planned for any of the four campaigns.  (Perhaps that will change?) 

Politics is the contact sport of the mind.  Let the games begin.

The comments are now open, for anyone who’s interested.

Gas prices are indeed rising. What’s worse—look for prices to get higher this summer. From ABCNews.Com’s article on January 6th, titled “Forecast: 2012 Worst Year For Gas Prices:” (All emphasis in the blockquotes is added).

To the dismay of drivers across the country, 2011 went down in the record books as having the most expensive gasoline average ever, $3.513 for the year, 72 cents per gallon higher than 2010′s yearly average, according to GasBuddy.

Patrick DeHaan, GasBuddy’s senior petroleum analyst, projects that by Memorial Day, the national average will be between $3.86 to $4.13 per gallon, and that prices in 2012 will come close to or set new all-time highs. If that happens, drivers could spend $200 to $300 more for gas this year.

Inflation adjusted data from the Energy Department’s U.S. Energy Information Administration confirmed that 2011 was a record year. The real annual average for a gallon of regular gas last year hit $3.56, up from $2.90 in 2010, according to the EIA. From its data that begins in 1919, the previous record high was in 1981, at $3.45.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could find ways to keep the costs of gasoline down? Well, one way to do that—lower shipping costs.

Unfortunately…

(AP) BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota oil drillers increasingly will rely on trains to move barrels of crude to market after the Obama administration’s decision to reject plans for a pipeline that would run from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, state and industry officials say.

“Pipelines are by far the safest and most economically efficient way to transport oil, but we are left with a limited number of options if pipelines are off the table,” said Tony Clark, chairman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission. “Once the oil is flowing, it has to go somewhere.”

How much would we save if pipelines could carry our oil, instead of trains?

Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state’s so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.

Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.

“Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation,” Ritter said.

Boy, it sure would be nice to be a rail shipper, now that the Keystone pipeline—and the thousands of jobs it would take to build it—has been put on hold.

Yep…you guessed it. (My headline gave it away, didn’t it?).

From the AP article:

Mile-long trains laden with North Dakota crude began running in 2008 when the state first reached its shipping capacity with existing pipelines and infrastructure, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.

Rail shipments now account for about one-quarter of the more than 510,000 barrels produced daily in North Dakota and will increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines, Kringstad said.

“If the (Keystone XL) is blocked or delayed, we still have to meet our transportation needs,” Kringstad said. “It’s pretty simple.”

BNSF Railway Co. hauls about 75 percent of the oil that currently leaves North Dakota by train, Kringstad said.

The railroad is a unit of billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and Buffett is a longtime Obama adviser.

Neither BNSF officials nor Buffett at his Berkshire Hathaway office in Omaha, Neb., returned telephone calls from The Associated Press.

Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc., said he believed Buffett had no influence in Obama’s decision to block the pipeline. Instead, he called it a “lucky break” for Buffett.

“Warren is smart and I like his intuition. He is a friend of mine,” Hamm said. “I don’t agree with his political leanings and his liberal outlook on things. But certainly he’s favored by this decision — it’s easy to figure that one out.”

$2 for every barrel shipped by rail from the North Dakota oil fields. Yes, Team Buffett is lucky, indeed.

Multiply 510,000 barrels a day (North Dakota’s current output) X .50 (the added cost per barrel of shipping by rail instead of through a pipeline)…well, I guess we can all absorb a extra quarter-of-a-million dollars a day in added fuel costs. (Looks as if we don’t have much of a choice.)

To be fair, though, only 10% of North Dakota daily output currently goes by rail (see above). However, the pipeline authority rep expects that total to jump “exponentially.” So, for planning purposes, let’s suppose that, eventually, half of North Dakota’s output moves by rail. OK—255,000 barrels X .50 = $127,500 in added fuel costs. Costs that will be passed on to us.

Did anyone in Washington D.C. ask you if you were OK with paying more for gas, so that we could just say no to that icky pipeline? Me neither.

I guess, in the big scheme of things, $127,500 a day isn’t a big deal. According to the Energy Department (see 1st blockquote), each of us is already paying hundreds of dollars more for gas than we were a few years ago. So, why not pay a little bit more?

Keep telling yourself that when you’re pumping gas, as the price meter climbs higher…and higher…and higher.

One of the wisest voices I’ve encountered in conservative media is that of Victor David Hanson. A classicist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Hanson writes for National Review and is a regular guest on The Hugh Hewitt Show, heard locally on KVOI.

On Thursday Hanson penned this gem on the downsides of President Obama’s decision to reject current plans for the Keystone pipeline.

a) Jobs in tough times? Anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 high-paying jobs were lost. These were shovel-ready and private-sector, and they would have led to the real creation of wealth — the antithesis of Solyndra. How strange — we pay tens of millions of dollars for a few hundred subsidized, money-losing jobs, while passing over thousands of money-making ones.

b) National security? While we ratchet up the pressure on Iran, as gas prices climb, and as our subsidized wind/solar alternatives fizzle, we hope that, in extremis, the Saudis can reroute their exports through the Red Sea. How strange — we cancel our own pipeline while expecting others will never do the same.

c) Environment? If the Keystone project raises environmental issues, then every other comparable one would too. It is not as if the route bisects Yosemite on its way to Big Sur. How strange — we assume that the Saudis or the Turks can build pipelines across their own lands without environmental problems, but that we, the apparently less technologically advanced, cannot. We hear that oil is “fungible”; if so, each barrel that we pass on, someone else less green won’t.

d) Financial solvency? We are now almost $16 trillion in debt, and we import over $500 billion in fossil fuels per year. The more energy we produce, or the more cheaply we can import it, or the more our export dollars stay in North America, where they can be easily rerouted into the U.S. economy, the less we, the near-insolvent, must borrow. How strange — we keep passing on projects that would increase gas and oil production and availability and earn us money, but not on wind and solar counterparts that produce little energy and lots of debt.

e) Symbolism? President Obama and his supporters recently have talked of “big” ideas and projects, as if our generation fears to gamble on a Hoover Dam or man-to-the-moon project. Yet the president passed on the one chance that he’s had in his presidency to match reality with his empty rhetoric. How strange — our elites expect unstable regimes overseas to provide us with oil (Air Force One and Warren Buffett’s jet are not powered by solar panels), and to risk their own environments to do so, and for others to lend us the money to pay for our imported oil, and for the world to insulate itself from the blackmail of oil-exporting monstrosities like Iran, but we ourselves will do little of what we advocate or expect for others.

Eventually, I think the pipeline will be built. The American market for Canadian oil is large, enduring and right next door. Moreover, China’s economy is showing signs of weakness. And, in all fairness, I think the White House and State Department have determined that the Canadians will wait, stewing with resentment, until the U.S. is ready to deal with them. (Or, until the Luddites in the U.S. environmental lobby can be placated or marginalized, whichever comes first).

(Of course, the Canadians may not be willing to wait. Recently, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly said that some Americans “would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America”. A wounded national pride, coupled with the lure of Chinese money now, might make the Canadians think twice about actually obeying the American environmental movement’s command to sit and stay.)

Nevertheless, when the Washington Post, whose desire to see the president win in 2008 was so blatant, is now moved to write an editorial titled “Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept,” it’s hard not to notice.

UPDATED at 7:00 AM to (a) include Prime Minister Harper’s quote and (b) add some more thoughts to the paragraph immediately following Professor Hanson’s blockquote.

If you wanted to see some of that ongoing incivility, all you had to do was turn the page of the Weekly, to Tom Danehy’s column.

“Come on, fake-ass conservatives. It kinda sucks when you can’t get even your own dogma right.” In the same article, he referred to Bush’s (as in George W., presumably) “cronies.”

I’ll readily admit—it’s no surprise to see Danehy express, um, displeasure with Republicans and conservatives. (“Two Thousand Eleven wasn’t a great year [mostly because of Republicans].” ; “the hell-spawn at Fox.”)

But, aren’t we ALL supposed to be setting a better example with our tone nowadays?

Here’s a link to a column Danehy wrote right after the shooting. (I.e., a time when we’d all been asked to think twice about the words we used and the tone of our discourse). In it, Danehy writes about “the rancid tenor of what passes for political discourse these days.”

He then calls Sarah Palin a “loon,” who “tries to pass herself off as this Frontier Babe of Substance.” He also refers to Republican House members as “clods.”

“The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, having, in their minds, wasted an entire week of voter-outrage-fueled momentum, are getting back to work this week. They will attempt to pass the Big Fat Lies About the Health Care Reform Law of 2010 Act. It’s even money that at least one clod will suggest that the outstanding care that Giffords received will somehow vanish into thin air if President Obama gets his way.”

I checked to see if the motto of the Weekly is “Civility For Thee—Not For Me.”

OK, what about David Fitzsimmons? The featured political cartoonist for the Arizona Daily Star. Fitz has quite a reputation for wielding a caustic pen. It’s no secret that conservatives and Republicans are favorite targets of his.

So, in these times of minding our tone, and weighing the impact of the thoughts we express—-has Fitz changed much? Let’s see what he wrote in December—the month before the one-year anniversary of the massacre.

- This cartoon shows Santa as an elephant (the GOP symbol) with gifts for the rich 1%. Santa’s hat is helpfully labeled “GOP,” presumably to make sure the reader gets the message. (Funny—if you look in the bag of goodies, I don’t see gifts labeled “Solyndra,” “LightSquared” or other firms that benefited from Democratic Party crony capitalism).
- In this cartoon, a slovenly-looking chap wearing a “Go GOP” hat sees a person wearing a sign saying “Tis Better To Give Than Receive.” “Socialist vermin,” the “GOP” fellow thinks.

Socialist vermin. Merry Christmas, indeed.

Do I think Danehy and Fitz should be pressured to tone down their rhetoric? Is that why I’m writing this?

No! To both questions.

First of all, politics is the contact sport of the mind. It always has been. Thick skins and a polished back (so things can roll off them easily) are highly recommended. Personally, I think Danehy’s a hoot.

More importantly, many of us have drastically different ideas about how our society, economy, government, etc… should change (or stay unchanged) and what our country’s goals should be. We’re facing many weighty decisions in the years ahead, about critical issues that affect everyone. Health care, the federal debt, Social Security…the list seems endless.

It’s natural that passions will be excited. And, passionate people act passionately. They always have.

No, I’m writing this because, time and time again this past week, I’ve heard talk radio listed as a reason for why civility hasn’t improved around here.

Well, guess what? I can think of another reason.

Radio talkers like Jon Justice are on the air for just a few hours a day. You can pick up the Weekly or Star 24 hours a day, at most any convenience store or (in the case of the Weekly) in front of most stores and restaurants.

Fitz is one of the Star’s most visible and touted figures. Go to the paper’s Opinion page and click on the “Opinion” tab. Only two things pop up—the Fitz Archive and the Fitz Store. As for the Weekly, Jim Boegle and Jim Nintzel both appear on local talk radio (John C. Scott, Bill Buckmaster) to comment on the news and current events. Nintzel hosts a Political Roundtable on KUAT, Tucson’s local PBS channel. In other words, these gentlemen aren’t lightweights in the Tucson media scene.

To be sure, Jim Boegle wrote, in his Editor’s Note of January 27th, that he hadn’t expected “some on the left to keep trying to link the political vitriol to the shooter’s actions, even though not a shred of publicly released evidence has shown a connection. (I’ve disagreed with Tom Danehy’s writings on the topic.)” I’ve also never personally heard Jim Nintzel blame talk radio for making Tucson less civil.

Having acknowledged that, the Arizona Daily Star and Tucson Weekly are the Old Pueblo’s most prominent print media. They’re also quite liberal, as talk radio is quite conservative.

So, if John Justice and Garrett Lewis need to tone it down, then Fitz and Danehy should tone it down too. It’s only fair…

…but, that sounds like a bad deal to me, all around. Let’s not go there.

Instead, let’s follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice: We should not be afraid “to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

Let’s thicken our skins. Let the advocates speak (or write) their peace, air your counter-arguments in response, then let the people decide who is reasonable and who errs.

The alternative is to have someone else decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You REALLY don’t want to go there.

That piece of advice, from former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, is one of the reasons I started “Fort Buckley” in the first place.

I blog mostly during election seasons, and it’s election season. Hence, Fort Buckley runs up its flag again…to half-staff.

This weekend is a time for reflection, remembrance and grieving. So is Monday, our first day back to work after the anniversary of January 8th, 2010. (Then, on Tuesday, TUSD meets to discuss MAS. To paraphrase—okay, distort—-the Chinese saying, Tucson appears cursed to live through an interesting week.)

I’m following the news, local talk show and blogosphere reactions to this weekend’s anniversary. In particular, I’m noting those who’ve (a) called for civility or (b) called out certain groups/individuals who, in their opinion, have helped make Tucson “uncivil.”

Then, I’m looking to see how civil THEY have been in this past year—a year where we were ALL supposed to be more mindful of the tone of the times we live in and what we do (or don’t do) to shape that tone. I see quite a few double standards; we have plenty to talk about in the days and weeks ahead.

But not today. Or tomorrow.

For now, may God soothe the souls of those who grieve and bestow His blessings upon all of us.

No, they’re not Lone Ranger aficianados. They read the Arizona Daily Star‘s hardcopy edition.

At first, the cynic, the conservative and the Republican in me all wondered if the Arizona Daily Star was deliberately trying to pee on Rick Grinnell’s big day. Or, perhaps the Star was sending a fingerprints-free shout-out to the Rothschild campaign? (“Oh, just LOOK at how we mishandled that ad…oopsie!”)

The Star‘s distate for Republicans and fondness for Democrats is well-known. Moreover, their most consequential voice is—the Daily Fitz. I could envision an outfit like that deliberately pasting ads over the face of the candidate they’ll endorse when Hell freezes over.

Perhaps there was an alternate explanation? A Google search for an explanation by the Star, an apology to the Grinnell campaign, or both, turned up nothing.

Then, I was reminded of the wisdom embodied in the adage known as Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

So, the three of us asked each other if the Star was inept enough to send thousands of papers across Arizona, with ads plastered over the face of a mayoral candidate.

Yep.

There are beaches to walk on, sandcastles to build, soft custard cones to eat…and critical things like that command one’s attention.

There will be plenty of time for politics, and other things, in the fall.

Accordingly, Fort Buckley is on hiatus until Labor Day.

Slainte!

Damning stuff! A joint Congressional committee took Rep. Ryan’s plan to task! Congressmen AND Senators, from BOTH parties! At a time when Rep. Ryan’s plan is drawing national attention, to include tons of criticism. Wow! BAD news for the GOP…

…IF that’s what really happened.

By reading the story, it sure sounds that way:

According to the report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee…

Analysis of the Ryan plan compared to traditional Medicare was carried out by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

Excerpts from the committee report

Just one problem: it WASN’T a committee report. The report was prepared by the staff of the committee chairman, Senator Robert Casey of PA. DEMOCRATIC Senator Robert Casey.

This wasn’t a bipartisan product. It was a partisan, one-sided product.

In Senator Casey’s defense, every page of his report is clearly labled as a product of HIS staff—not the committee as a whole. I don’t see how you can’t miss it.

It’s obvious that Senator Casey isn’t trying to mislead anybody…

I asked the Republican vice-chair of the committee, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, to respond. His press secretary confirmed that this report was a partisan product. She enclosed Rep. Brady’s response to the report.:

“This partisan report is wishful thinking. It ignores the next decade of cuts under current law to doctors, hospitals and other providers who treat Medicare patients and the growing insolvency of Medicare itself. Seniors face a future shortage of doctors and services under today’s Medicare. Republican reforms offer better choices and services tailored to what the patient needs rather than leave them to the whim of rationed, managed care.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with partisan reports. Democrats and Republicans have vastly different ideas on how to fix Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a host of other problems. Ultimately the voters will decide.

I suspect that, if the voters see one side of an argument misrepresenting its evidence, the voters will decide that THAT side of the argument must have some serious weaknesses.

“[NY-26] is a preview of scare tactics, distortions, demagoguery to try to scare seniors into voting for them,” he said. “The irony of it is we’re the ones directly protecting Medicare’s current benefits for current seniors.”

From Tina Korbe, over at today’s “Hotair” conservative blog:

It’s too late for Jane Corwin, but it’s not too late for Republicans planning to run in 2012. They still have time to master the Medicare message — and they’d better, if they want to win. But, more importantly, conservative candidates need to articulate the facts clearly precisely because they’re facts. Medicare can’t sustain itself much longer unless Congress takes action and, so far, the House-passed budget is the only Congressional proposal to seriously tackle entitlement reform.

Today, Rep. Paul Ryan made that crystal clear with the release of “The Path to Prosperity (Episode 2): Saving Medicare, Visualized.”

“If we do nothing, Medicare will nearly double in the next decade, exhausting its remaining funds,” Ryan says in the video.

The video’s effective infographics highlight the indisputable and alarming reality: The average American household spends 50 times more today on health care than it did in 1960. Health care spending now equals 17.6 percent of our economy — a full 11 points higher than the 5.6 percent it represented in 1960. And 10,000 Baby Boomers are added to Medicare every day.

The president’s plan, Ryan points out, would merely insert a panel of bureaucrats between Medicare and health care providers and between those providers and their patients. Those unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats would determine how much Medicare should pay for medical services, as well as what services doctors should provide their patients.

“These are price controls and we’ve tried them before,” Ryan says. “They encourage more consumption and force doctors to charge their non-Medicare patients more. That pushes costs up not down.”

(Emphasis above added)

I am confident that Rep Ryan’s plan will stand up to close, fair scrutiny. I doubt the Senate Budget Committee’s plans for fixing Medicare will stand up as well—because I’m starting to think we’ll never SEE a budget from the Senate Democrats. That would require them to spell out THEIR plan for saving Medicare.

And that plan would be…?