Oh, you haven’t? Well, there’s a good reason for that. Ron Barber REFUSED to affirm his support for Obama in public, when asked!

Kelly asked Barber to declare who he’ll vote for in November for president, and Barber — although a Democrat with an incumbent president of his party — refused, saying he’s focused on his own campaign.

Now THAT’s a ringing endorsement of a sitting US president. (Emphasis above added).

It was such a simple answer. One word: “Obama.” And yet…

Barber quickly clarified. (Meanwhile, we are searching YouTube for Barber’s “hostage” video, a la Newark Mayor Cory Booker. [See below for details])

Unfortunately for Ron Barber and the Democrats, the horse had long since left the barn. And, many noticed.

- The Poltico politics website. (You’ve seen this link already.)
- Chuck Todd of MSNBC: “Folks this AZ 08 House special for Gabby Giffords’ seat is close. Dem nominee won’t say how he’ll vote for POTUS.”

Meanwhile, we Republicans get to sit down, munch on some popcorn and watch the blockbuster movie “Damage Control!”

We get to watch it, again and again and again. (You can, too!)

We get to speculate about what’s in Ron Barber’s “hostage” video. (Is he blinking Morse code distress signals with his eyes? Is his family with Jeff Rogers [Pima County Democratic Party chair] at an “undisclosed location” for, um, “safekeeping?”)

We get to read bloggers speculate about what it all means, like Moe Lane, writer extraordinare at the “Redstate” blog:

anybody who still seriously thinks that the Obama campaign has a shot at winning Arizona should consider that the people who actually have to run in Arizona apparently have a different opinion. If Ron Barber doesn’t dare bring up Barack Obama’s name in a special election in June, what are the odds that people are going to give that name a better reception in November?

Emphasis added—more popcorn! We need something to drink, too? OK—how about a Diet Schadenfreude? Super-sized!

(The backstory on Cory Booker. This past Sunday, on “Meet The Press”, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, a Democrat, criticized Democratic Party attacks on private capital firms. With lightning speed, Booker issued a YouTube video clarifying his remarks. This led to widespread speculation that the White House and Democratic Party pressured Booker to get back in line with the party’s talking points. Booker’s YouTube video is now derided as being a “hostage video”—i.e., a video made by someone who’s under some form of duress.)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

Sure, let’s tinker with the First Amendment so that it suits one political party’s wishes. Now THAT’s the leadership America needs!

Charles Cooke at National Review adds:

Look for further proposals to include a “revised” Second Amendment that doesn’t cover firearms and a revised Sixth Amendment that doesn’t cover public trials.

Why am I writing about this? Do I have any idea that Ron Barber endorses this idea? No. But that’s not why I’m writing this.

Apparently, it’s time to play the “Disavow” game in the CD8 special election. Fine, let’s play!

Does Ron Barber agree with Nancy Pelosi that the First Amendment needs to be repaired?

What’s that old phrase…oh yeah, “silence equals consent.” I haven’t heard Ron Barber disavow Nancy Pelosi, so…

UPDATED: Here’s another question for Ron Barber: If he got the chance, would he vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Does Barber think Pelosi should be Speaker of the House again?

Over to you, Tucson mainstream media. (Don’t hold your breath, readers).

(Oh…we’re in luck! There’s a House election coming up…)

By comparison, in the Senate, an individual Senator can sway the course and content of legislation when the vote is close. Even when the vote isn’t only NOT close, it’s against him, one Senator (or a few) can slow down the whole legislative process. (If nothing else, they can filibuster, something it takes sixty votes to stop.) In so doing, they can force the Senate leadership to listen to, and heed, them.

The House of Representatives isn’t the Senate. The majority party runs it, and the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader and Whip run the majority party. Maverick Congressmen/women—or members of the minority party—get marginalized, unless the Speaker and Majority Leader want them to be players.

What are the chances that the GOP will lose the House in November? Well, let’s see what the experts say.

• According to the Cook Political Report, the 2010 redistricting fortified 10 to 15 Congressional seats for the GOP.
• “Republicans are in strong position to keep control of the House” says Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball.  (Crystal Ball reached that assessment with a predictive model that “accurately predicted the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives and Senate in 2006 and the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.”)
• Intrade gives the GOP a 75% chance of keeping control.
• Election Projection predicts that the GOP will pick up 6 seats in November, giving it 248 members.

When most Americans look at Arizona, what do they see? (OK, besides the Grand Canyon). They see Phoenix. C’mon, admit it—we know it’s true. (Non-Chicagoans and upstate New Yorkers know what I’m talking about here).

Phoenix has several GOP House members, plus both US Senators. Tucson has Raul Grijalva, who’s chairman of the House Progressive Caucus and world-famous for calling for a boycott of his own state over SB1070.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner and the House GOP leadership look south of Phoenix, don’t we want them to see something besides “Baja Arizona?” I sure do.

Elect Jesse Kelly in CD 8. Keep Tucson from being marginalized in Congress.

Today, “Simon Black of Sovereign Man” comments on plans by Democratic Senators to punish an entrepreneur. (A super-super wealthy, and apparently ungrateful, entrepreneur, to be sure.) Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, plans to renounce his US citizenship, apparently in order to save on taxes. In response, Senators Chuck Schumer and Robert Casey Jr. propose a law punishing people who renounce their American citizenship to avoid taxes.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves: Why do job creators (like Saverin) feel the need to renounce US citizenship?

Take it away, “Simon Black.”

I’ve been in the US for a little more than 24-hours. And having flipped through the TV channels trying to figure out what useless drivel big media is passing off as ‘news’, I realized that I’m going to vomit if I hear the word “fair” one more time.

This concept of ‘fair’ seems to be dominating discussion of the US government’s dismal fiscal condition. The talking heads say that it’s ‘fair’ for wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes and bail the country out… or that everyone needs to pay his/her ‘fair’ share.

The whole logic is absurd: you do not ‘fix’ the country’s fiscal imbalances by giving the idiots in charge even more resources to squander… it’s like dumping gasoline on a forest fire. Somehow the debate seems to have missed this point.

This ‘fair’ nonsense is also very dangerous. Just ask any three-year old– ‘fair’ is completely arbitrary. It’s like a Wiki version morality… if enough people agree on it, it’s fair.

In this case, ‘fair’ is defined in the sole discretion of those who are the direct beneficiaries of confiscating other people’s money. But let’s look at the numbers:

According to the IRS statistical database, the top 1% of income earners in the United States pays roughly 40% of all US individual income tax. They also get audited at least 5-times more than anyone else. Fair?

The other major complaint seems to be that the wealthy are ‘abusing’ capital gains rules in order to pay a 15% rate instead of a 35% rate. Duh. That’s why they’re wealthy, and stay wealthy… they don’t WORK for a living, they OWN assets which are subject to capital gains.

It seems so bizarre that a country once regarded as the freest, most economically enviable in the world would treat its productive citizens with such hostility.

I’ll readily concede—in many ways, Eduardo Saverin isn’t the most sympathetic figure. Apparently his family moved here years ago because they felt threatened in their home country (Brazil). So, yes, that does make Saverin an ingrate. As Senator Schumer said when he announced his proposed bill (which I’m calling the “Eduardo Law”): “Saverin has turned his back from the country that welcomed him, kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire.”

That’s true. It’s also beside the point.

America needs to attract entrepreneurs, not repel them. Many entrepreneurs may be greedy, but they also create jobs and spur economic growth. Growing economies do a much better job of paying out benefits. More specifically—they do a better job of generating economic growth that results in larger tax revenues that pay for a dizzying array of government benefits.

You can print all the government checks you want, but if the government doesn’t have enough money…

The world economy is changing at a dizzying rate. The businesses that will be driving successful economies and generating wealth ten years from now may not have been invented yet. Bright, creative and driven people like Eduardo Saverin will create those businesses.

Do we want them to create those businesses here, or in some other country?

Does it feel good to stick it to the super-rich? Sure it does. I’ll readily concede that some of the super-rich spend so lavishly and ostentatiously that it’s hard to resist that inner pull to seek schadenfreude. Especially when economic times are as tough as they are.

Having acknowledged that, ask yourself: How much tougher will economic times be in the future if the next generation’s Eduardo Saverins or Mark Zuckerbergs choose to set up shop in some other country?

SNL Skit from 2008 – CNN Obama debates Hillary Clinton:

Moderator: “Senator Obama, are you comfortable? Can I get you a pillow?”

Obama: “No thanks, I’m fine.”

Today we’ll have the first of JUST TWO debates Tucsonans will see before the June 17th CD8 special election. Tucson media (KUAT, the Arizona Daily Fitz..excuse me, Star) will run both.

We Republicans won’t mind…well, we won’t be too surprised…if the moderators pull their punches when they question Ron Barber. Perhaps they will remember all the other Tucson media who’ve found paying gigs in Democrat Congressional offices (Mark Kimble, CJ Karamargin); that might make the moderators hesitant to bite the hand that might eventually feed them.

We just hope the debate moderators won’t insist that Jesse Kelly issue any “Barberpologies.”

(Not quite sure who “Barbergirl” will turn out to be. Maybe the Weekly will send someone).

Voters in southern Arizona may get to see only one debate in the special election to fill former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ seat in Congress, and Republicans blame Ron Barber for that.

UPDATE—see below

KUAT-TV, Channel 6, will broadcast a debate between Democrat Barber (top), Republican Jesse Kelly (bottom) and Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis from 6-7 p.m. May 16.

But a second debate, planned for May 14 by Tucson high school students, was canceled last week after the Barber campaign backed out, said Arlo Ogden, Vail Academy and High School government teacher. The Barber campaign counters that it is attending lots of events in the district that will reach “as many people as possible.”

There are people in Vail, lots of them. Constituents, too. And their kids.

Ogden said his students in far east Tucson began organizing congressional debates two years ago, drawing several hundred attendees and online viewers to each of two Republican primary debates in 2010 and in April, for the primary in the special election.

“several hundred attendees.” See—I TOLD you there were lots of people in Vail!

During the first event, conservative radio host John Justice moderated; during the second, a senior in the class did so.

For the debate this month, Ogden said, Kelly and Manolakis agreed to participate, but the Barber campaign asked for “trusted, independent” moderators to be secured before making a commitment.

“I was not real enthused about the verbage. … Those are my students they’re talking about, and they’re questioning their integrity,” Ogden said, adding he would not have used a moderator with a political bent, like Justice, for a general-election debate.

Ogden said he found two local news reporters to field questions, in addition to lining up security, media coverage and a sign-language interpreter.

“two local news reporters?” Gosh, I hope they’re weren’t from the Weekly. Jesse Kelly stands as much chance of getting fair treatment from the Weekly as a celluloid dog does of chasing an asbestos cat through Hell. As far as many local Republicans are concerned, the Star isn’t much better. (See below—I hope we’re wrong about the Star. I guess we’ll find out next Wednesday).

Tucson media seem to have very chummy ties with Democrats (cough cough Mark Kimble CJ Karamargin cough). So, as an Old Pueblo Republican, when I see the phrase “two local news reporters,” I get a bit nervous.

“We got everything, I thought, hammered out,” Ogden said. But he soon received a call from the Barber campaign declining the invitation.

These kids were going to do this the Monday night before their finals,” he said. “My students have never received anything less than superior reviews (of the debates). When we got that phone call, it was kind of disappointing.”

To be fair, the Barber campaign says “the campaign did not ‘promise to do something and then back out.’” And, again to be fair, Ron Barber IS willingly going into a kitchen, of sorts:

Campaign manager Jennifer Cox told the Republic that Barber is “looking forward to a robust debate” with Kelly.

She added that Barber “has the utmost respect for the students at Vail Academy” and that he is looking forward to visiting the government class later in the week to talk about his campaign.

(Emphasis added).

Good for Barber. Let’s see how convincing his explanation is, for why he chose not to participate in the Vail debate—a decision that apparently caused the debate to be canceled.

Visiting a high school government class isn’t the same thing as debating in public, for ALL your constituents to see. It’s a lot harder for the cook to control the heat in a public debate to his liking. Or his party’s.

UPDATE. There will be, after all, a debate that the public can attend.

There will be two debates in District 8, the Barber campaign announced late Monday.

The event moderated by the Arizona Daily Star will take place May 23 at the Tucson Jewish Community Center, 3800 E. River Road.

So, there will be one debate that the public can attend. Unfortunately…just one. (The KUAT debate on May 16th is not open to the public). And, there will only be two debates for this entire general campaign.

That appears to suit the Democrats just fine.

The Arizona Daily Independent(ADI) reported this weekend that Ron Barber refused to participate in a Congressional District 8 (CD8) candidate debate sponsored by Vail Academy and High School (VAHS). According to the ADI article, both Kelly and Charles Manolakis, the Green Party candidate, accepted Vail Academy’s offer to debate.

So, what’s up with the Vail debate now? A visit to the Facebook page for VAHS’ “Congressional Special Election Debate shows the following statement at the top of the page: “Unfortunately, VAHS was unable to secure all three candidates therefore we are canceling the debate scheduled for May 14th.”

What a shame.

I looked for information on the other debates that are scheduled—and it seems that there’s only ONE CD8 special election debate scheduled, on May 23rd.

Only ONE debate? Why not more? The CD8 congressional seat merits only ONE debate between the candidates?

Did someone decide that CD8 voters already know everything they need to know about the candidates, and where they stand on the issues? (If so, I’d sure like to meet that “someone.”)

I asked the Kelly campaign why there weren’t more debates. John Ellinwood from the Kelly campaign sent me this reply: “Jesse was looking forward to a series of public debates around the district but Ron Barber seems reluctant to discuss the issues important to Southern Arizona.” (Emphasis added). Specifically, Kelly was willing to do “4 or 5 or more [debates] if needed.”

I was looking forward to a series of debates between the candidates in CD8. Weren’t we all? In fact, isn’t it surprising that we appear to be heading for a Congressional election with JUST ONE debate?

Southeastern Tucson needs an aggressive, capable voice in Congress. The tried-and-true way of determining who the best candidate is—head-to-head debates. The more debates, the better. At the very least, we shouldn’t settle for JUST ONE.

Debates were good enough for Lincoln and Douglas; they should be good enough for us.

Here’s hoping that ALL of the candidates agree to several debates, in between now and the election. Voters deserve to see and hear, for themselves, who’s the best person for this critical job.

UPDATE: This is an excerpt from Wednesday’s Arizona Daily Star article on CD8 debates

[Referring to the May 23rd debate] This is the only currently scheduled debate in which voters will be able to watch live as Barber and Kelly discuss the issues facing the district in a head-to-head format prior to the June 12 Congressional District 8 special election. It will be held in the JCC Ballroom, which seats in excess of 500 people. Seating will be first come, first served.

KUAT Channel 6 will air a candidate forum featuring Barber and Kelly on May 16 at 6 p.m. that will be taped earlier in the day. The taping of the forum is not open to the public.

Students at Vail Academy and High School tried to organize a third debate, but Barber declined the invitation.

Two debates makes the most sense, said Jennifer Cox, Barber’s campaign manager, who didn’t elaborate further as to why they declined.

(All emphasis was added).

Back in the early 1990s, when Republicans had been the minority party in the House of Representatives for decades, Danforth fielded a question similar to the one that opens this article.

Danforth’s response (I’m paraphrasing here): To be a member of the MINORITY party in the House of Representatives…is to be dead. Translation: Congressmen/women whose party isn’t the majority party in the House of Representatives, have little or no chance to get meaningful things done.

The House of Representatives is much different than the Senate. The House’s rules allow the majority party to dominate debate and determine which bills do (or do not) get acted upon, much more so than the Senate. Moreover, the leadership of both political parties in the House have much more control over their members than Senate party leaders do. It’s a lot easier—and much less risky—for a Senator to ignore the Senate Majority Leader than it is for a Congressman/woman to irritate the Speaker of the House.

In other words—the majority party runs the House of Representatives, and party leaders run the majority party…so, the majority party leaders (the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader and Majority Whip) run the House. (Think of it as an example of the transitive property of American politics.)

The Republican Party runs the House of Representatives. It’s going to run the House after the November election. I encourage Democrats or members of the media (yes, I repeat myself) to show convincing evidence to the contrary. (Please make my day by citing Nancy Pelosi as your source).

We’re going to see major, major changes in Washington over the next few years. Every community, every region in America is going to need representatives that can effectively and ably speak up for the needs of their constituents.

But, that’s not going to be enough.

No, we’ll need representatives who can actually get the House leadership to listen to them. In the world we live in, representatives from the majority party in the House of Representatives find it a lot easier to get things done, and to protect the needs of their constituents.

That’s the reality of politics. I’m sure Pima County Democrats, who spend lots of money to advertise for Republican and Libertarian congressional candidates, understand the realities of politics.

Tucson needs a Congressman/woman that the House leadership will pay attention to. We DON’T need one that the House leadership will ignore. Translation: we need a Republican to win CD8 and CD2.

In the weeks ahead, I’ll lay out in more detail the reasons why the Old Pueblo needs a Republican in Congress.

On March 31st at 8:30pm people around the world will shut off their lights for one hour as a symbolic gesture that they want “something” done about climate change. During that same hour many other people around the world will keep their lights on in appreciation of human ingenuity and in defiance of the philosophy that paints humans as a blight on the planet.

Human beings exploit the environment. This isn’t a bad thing—it is how we survive and thrive. We don’t have claws or fur. We don’t live in trees or burrow underground, and really, who would want to? The way that humans have evolved from shivering in a dark caves to curling up in a heated home, under a down blanket, with music, lights, and indoor plumbing, is by analyzing our environment and altering it in ways that improve our lives. It’s the human way.

Yet, there are some people out there who think that humanity is a disease on the earth that, unchecked, will use up all of its resources. They want you to turn off your lights for an hour this Saturday for “Earth Hour” in a show of support for enforced energy conservation. It’s your right to choose to do this if you want.

On the other hand, you can join the thousands of people around the world that will not shut off their lights during that hour, and instead will celebrate the innovations of humanity and advocate for the protection of our freedom to continue advancing.

At the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we started Human Achievement Hour in 2009 to highlight the idea that environmentalism, as a philosophy, has this at its core: that humans should not exploit the Earth—even if it means humanity doesn’t advance, fewer people live, and those who do survive live shorter, sicker, and less comfortable lives.

Many people participating in the World Wildlife Fund’s Earth Hour are honestly motivated by their personal desire to live in a clean and beautiful environment—which is understandable. However, they are unknowingly lending their support to a movement that wants to clamp down on human progress. The implicit idea behind Earth Hour, Earth Day, and similar efforts is that human beings, through our exploitation of natural resources and the waste we produce, are an unnatural and negative force in the world and that our existence should be controlled, limited, and ultimately reduced.
…
We have no issue with private, voluntary conservation efforts. Individuals, whether alone or in a group, are welcome to turn off their lights, whether they think they are reducing emissions or simply want to save money. However, no one should have the right to use government coercion to force others to sit in the dark.

Cleaner, advanced technologies are built upon “dirtier” technologies. All of the innovations we enjoy today—from sliced bread to buildings to computers—stand on the shoulders of technologies that came before. The more government interferes with individuals’ ability to utilize natural resources and experiment with new technologies, the more expensive and more difficult it is to advance.

We in the West have reached a level where we can sit in the dark for an hour, fully confident that the lights will come back on when we flick the switch, but there are many places around the world where that is not the case. In some countries it is Earth Hour every hour.

Human Achievement Hour is an annual event that recognizes and celebrates the fact that this is the greatest time to be alive yet, and that the reason we have come this far is that people have been free to use their minds and the resources in their environment to experiment, create, and innovate.

Participants in the Human Achievement Hour celebration recognize the necessity of protecting the individual from government coercion, so that we may continue improving our lives and the world around us.

All emphasis above is added. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s website is here.

No, it’s not the same as having major league teams here, day in and day out, throughout the month. And yes, we did have one spring training game here last year—under circumstances that lent themselves to reflection and remembrance, not relaxation.

Last Friday, though, was just about baseball. The Seattle Mariners and Milwaukee Brewers*, beer, hot dogs, sunscreen and all the other ingredients that make baseball the bread that nourishes America’s spirit.

I don’t know about Mudville, but there was real joy in Tucson. At least last Friday.

Here’s how it looked from behind the third-base dugout, with a smartphone camera.

The Star Spangled Banner. I wish I'd written down the name of the singers.

A Fire Department honor guard presents the colors

It's nice to sit behind the dugout. (Especially if the only camera you have is the dinky one embedded in your smartphone.)

* Or, minor leaguers wearing their uniforms.