Citizen Staff Writer
IN BRIEF

GARRY DUFFY

gduffy@tucsoncitizen.com

Rep. Raúl Grijalva was among 30 House members to call on President Obama to ensure U.S. neutrality in the March 15 presidential election in El Salvador.

Grijalva, D-Ariz., was among the House members to sign a letter to the president asking that U.S. officials not try to sway the election, which polls show could be a defeat for the incumbent conservative Nationalist Republic Alliance party (ARENA) by the populist Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN).

ARENA won the last national election in 2004 among complaints by human rights groups that U.S. State Department officials attempted to favor ARENA candidates by circulating reports that U.S. aid to the county would be cut and that Salvadoran immigrants to the U.S. could face deportation.

“Latin America provides a unique challenge for a president that hopes to turn the page on a history of U.S. coups, interventions and disdain for elections that don’t turn out the way some in Washington might prefer,” the joint letter to the president stated.

Citizen Staff Writer
OUR OPINION

Our Opinion

Jonathan Paton, who will be a Republican member of the state Senate when the Legislature convenes in three weeks, has what may be a good idea.

He wants to change the way residents of Tucson elect their City Council members.

And while that may be a good idea, it is not Paton’s decision to make – at least, not as a member of the Legislature.

Paton is a local resident and in that capacity, he has the same rights as other Tucsonans to start a petition drive to change the city’s elections procedures.

But as a legislator, we invite him to butt out.

In the 2009 legislative session, which begins Jan. 12, Paton plans to introduce a bill that would mandate nonpartisan municipal elections – a change that would apply only to Tucson. If the change were in effect, Tucsonans would not elect Democrats or Republicans – just council members.

Tucson voters have consistently rejected nonpartisan elections, most recently in 1993.

Paton also wants the Legislature to abolish the Tucson-only process in which council candidates are nominated within their wards in the general election, then elected in a citywide election. It is a process Tucson has found adequate since 1929. A city initiative drive to change that failed in 2007.

Tucson is out of step with every other Arizona city. Nogales and South Tucson were the other two partisan election holdouts, but voters in both cites switched to nonpartisan elections in recent years.

That’s how it should be done. Incorporated cities should be allowed wide operational latitude based on what their citizens want.

It would be different if Tucson were doing something illegal or that impacted other cities. But how Tucsonans choose to elect council members is of no consequence to anyone other than Tucsonans.

There are arguments on both sides of both changes proposed by Paton.

Ward-only elections may make council members too provincial. But they also don’t give voice to a political party strong in a single ward, but outnumbered citywide.

Nonpartisan elections make sense because most municipal issues – picking up trash, patching streets, running police and fire departments – don’t have Democratic or Republican sides. But fewer voters are drawn to cast ballots in nonpartisan elections.

However, all of that should be hashed out and debated by city residents – not by state legislators, whose job is to deal with matters affecting the entire state, not residents of a single city.

We thank Sen.-elect Paton for his concern for the well-being of Tucson’s election process. But let us decide how we want to elect our council members.

Legislators are elected to deal with matters of statewide concern – not to tell cities how to run internal operations.

Citizen Staff Writer
OUR OPINION

The Arizona Legislature will have plenty to occupy its attention when it convenes in January.

First and foremost is resolving the state’s $1 billion-plus budget deficit.

But November’s election revealed another pressing task for lawmakers: Revising laws governing the voter initiative process.

So says the Arizona Supreme Court in a case involving supporters of a transportation initiative that sought a 1-cent boost in the state sales tax to pay for improvements to Arizona’s road and transit systems.

Secretary of State Jan Brewer ruled supporters had not collected enough valid signatures to put the initiative on the ballot.

The initiative’s supporters went to court, which ruled they had missed the deadline to challenge the state’s rejection of their signatures – a deadline that had lapsed while the Secretary of State’s Office, working with the Maricopa County recorder, still was attempting to validate the signatures.

That caught the eye of the Supreme Court, which took the case on appeal. Given the tight deadline (10 days) for fighting rejection of signatures and the growing number of signatures that need to be checked, a “thorough legislative re-examination” of election laws by the Legislature is in order, the court suggested.

That’s a good idea. But we think the Legislature should go further and fix a bigger problem: the way initiatives are named.

The Arizona Constitution mandates that each initiative has a title but does not require that the title be, you know, accurate.

The result: misleadingly named initiatives designed to confuse voters.

Most of the time, voters see through the subterfuge and defeat bad proposals. This year they realized that Proposition 101, “Medical Choice for Arizona,” actually would have limited some possible future medical choices.

And they saw the “Payday Loan Reform Act” for what it was – an attempt by the payday loan industry to hang around past the July 2010 sunset provision approved by the Legislature.

But sometimes bad proposals make it into law. Take Proposition 100, “Protect Our Homes,” which had little to do with protecting our homes. Voters approved the proposal, which amends the state constitution to prohibit Arizona or local governments from taxing real estate sales.

Thus, a common funding mechanism – 35 states allow it – is now verboten in Arizona at a time when the state is desperate for revenue.

Arizona should do what Colorado and other states do: Hold public hearings to determine the accuracy of proposition titles, and create an appeals process so all sides are heard.

Of course, if the Legislature refuses to take up the naming issue, Arizonans have a recourse: They can gather signatures and place it on the 2009 ballot.

GUEST OPINION

Our vice presidential selection process is flawed.

Under the U.S. Constitution, if Sen. John McCain had been elected president and then had to leave office, the presidency would have been assumed by an individual considered by many as stunningly unqualified.

Our nation must never again be put at such risk.

This development occurred because the vice presidential nominee was, by media reports, abruptly (if not impulsively) chosen at the last minute by the presidential nominee (possibly without the full agreement of his top advisors).

The overriding criterion for that selection (as it is has been with all VP nominees) was that person’s ability to help the top of the ticket get elected. All other considerations were secondary.

Although this was arguably the right strategy politically, its ramifications could have threatened the security of our nation.

It is unacceptable that our electoral system does not provide for a democratically based, credible backup plan to replace a president who can no longer serve in office.

Every four years, the nation struggles with who will become our next president. This highly democratic process starts almost two years prior to the election.

Presidential candidates discuss and debate before the public and are interviewed and vetted by the media.

A few months before November, a nominee is finally chosen by the voters of each of the two major parties.

By then, the electorate has had the opportunity to evaluate (ad nauseam) the candidates.

When Sens. Obama and McCain were selected as nominees, it was acknowledged that the people had spoken.

But when, during those long two years, had any thought been given by the electorate (or even the respective parties) as to the choice for vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency? None or very little.

For an analogy, consider. The next time you step into a highly sophisticated commercial jet, glance to your left and contemplate the two individuals seated in the cockpit.

Although they are designated as “pilot and co-pilot,” both have been certified by their company and by the Federal Aviation Administration as fully competent, by training and experience, to safely fly that airplane through the worst conditions. The flying public would accept nothing less.

But imagine if that co-pilot had received questionable training; had never flown such a complicated jet; had never flown into many airports and had given incorrect and incoherent answers to important questions during job interviews. Would you want that person co-piloting your jet?

Our nation, due to our method of selecting the vice president, could have placed such a “co-pilot” into the White House.

We must fix our electoral system to help safeguard our country. Vice presidential nominees must be chosen democratically, by their party’s full membership, months before the general election.

In this manner, qualifications for high office can be fully considered by the voters well prior to the election.

In November, we vote for a “ticket” of president and vice president. Let us take seriously the caveat from former Secretary of State Colin Powell: The job of the vice president is to be “ready to be president.”

The integrity of our executive branch of government and the security of our nation may depend on heeding his advice.

Dr. Gilbert D. Shapiro is a Tucson podiatrist and foot surgeon.

Citizen Staff Writer

BLAKE MORLOCK

bmorlock@tucsoncitizen.com

The number of early ballots turned into the City Clerk’s Office will likely exceed the numbers in 2003 and 2005.

As of Tuesday, voters had turned in 28,620, about half the early ballots requested.

Voters have until Saturday to cast early ballots for mayor, three City Council seats and two propositions. Election Day is Tuesday.

In 2005, 29,911 early ballots were cast and 30,555 voters turned in early ballots in 2003, during the last mayoral election.

The Clerk’s Office typically is deluged by early ballots late in the early-voting period.

Of the early ballots turned in so far for the general election, 14,113 were from Democrats, 9,415 were from Republicans and 4,865 were from independent voters. The balance came from voters in smaller parties such as the Green and Libertarian parties.

The city sent request forms for early ballots to all registered voters, leaving one less step necessary for political organizations to get out the vote.

“The numbers you are seeing would not have occurred without the city (mailing ballot request forms),” said Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Vince Rabago.

Rabago also took some of the credit because Democrats have increased their emphasis on getting out the early vote the past three years.

County Republican Chairwoman Judi White said people are starting to trust the early-voting process and prefer it.

“People have busy lives and find it easier to fill out a ballot at the dining room table,” White said.

Some voters will always want to vote on Election Day, so the increase in early ballots may represent new voters, she said.

You can vote early even if you didn’t get a ballot in the mail.

Registered voters can cast early ballots until Friday at City Hall, 255 W. Alameda St. That location will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. through Friday.

Early ballots also can be cast Saturday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the public library branch at 530 N. Wilmot Road .

Early ballots sent by mail must arrive at the Clerk’s Office by 7 p.m. Tuesday.

Citizen Staff
Mark Kimble COLUMN

Graf thinks Kolbe on wrong side of ‘value chasm’

Mark Kimble

Citizen Associate Editor

Yes, the war in Iraq is important. The problem of illegal immigration is a big concern. The future of Social Security is on a lot of people’s minds, as is Medicare and the cost of prescription drugs.

Those all are topics worth debating. But the Jim Kolbe-Randy Graf race for a seat in Congress is being fought on a much more visceral level.

It’s about abortion, especially so-called partial birth abortion. It’s about same-sex marriage and the rights of gays. And it’s about protecting the American way of life and the American economy from illegal immigration.

There are issues that separate these two Republicans. But there also are sharply different core values – a difference that Graf is spending a lot of time emphasizing in his long-shot bid to unseat Kolbe.

One political analyst calls it the “value chasm.”

Kolbe has been in the U.S. House of Representatives for 20 years, becoming a southern Arizona fixture. Six years ago, former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy came the closest to unseating Kolbe, losing by 7 percentage points. Other than that, Kolbe has had cakewalks – especially in his primaries. Many serious opponents are sitting on the sidelines, opting to wait until he retires rather than conduct a Quixotic campaign.

But Graf, a golf pro from Green Valley, isn’t. He is leaving after four years in the state House – the last two as majority whip, making him one of the few southern Arizona legislators in leadership.

Graf is proud to be labeled conservative. And he’s going after Kolbe not only on the issues, but also on who he is.

Kolbe is gay – the only openly gay Republican in Congress. Graf doesn’t come right out and mention that. He doesn’t have to. Everyone knows it. So instead, Graf keeps the issue in people’s minds by nibbling around the edge of Kolbe’s “gayness,” comparing his stances with those of the best-known gay man in Congress.

On his Web site, Graf writes: “Jim Kolbe supports redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to wed. … He has teamed with Massachusetts liberal Barney Frank and signed a letter calling on every member of the House of Representatives to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

Graf worked to exploit this “value chasm” at a press conference last week at Trail Dust Town on Tucson’s East Side. The event was billed as a time for Graf to unveil his border policy.

Before things started, a guy wandered around with an American flag motif head scarf. He wore a black T-shirt with “U.S. Constitution Enforcement” written in yellow letters on the back. There were about 40 Graf supporters, including a passel of home-schooled, sign-waving students brought in for the the cameras.

One supporter handed out brochures from the John Birch Society, telling me, “This will tell you about that scoundrel who’s now in there.” This was apparently the Kolbe edition that reported he consistently voted for “high taxes and big government.”

Graf mounted the Old West-style gazebo and said he wanted to discuss “the ever-widening gap between southern Arizonans’ views of the future and Jim Kolbe’s views.” Then a half-dozen ministers and a church layman took their turns at the microphone.

“There is only one marriage, and it’s between a man and a woman,” the first minister said. “And every baby deserves to live.”

“A woman’s right to choose is before she gets pregnant,” said another as the crowd applauded. “We stand on the side of God,” said a third. “We have been praying for candidates like this.”

Graf told his supporters that all of this showed that Kolbe’s views “have disenfranchised an entire segment of this district.”

Margaret Kenski is a local political scientist and pollster who came up with the “value chasm” label to describe the rift between Kolbe and Graf. And it’s an uncrossable chasm.

“Generally, I think we have seen in American politics – and especially in the Republican Party – a divide over issues that is very irreconcilable,” Kenski said.

For example, if someone believes that life begins at conception, how can abortion at any stage be accepted? If a person believes homosexual activity is immoral, then how can it be reconciled? There is no middle ground.

So what is Graf doing to capture these voters and get their votes – something that no other Kolbe opponent has been able to do? Kenski has been a pollster for Kolbe since he’s been in Congress and has closely watched all his races – including this one.

“He is focusing on a few things that will rally people in his district to turn out in what is likely to be a very low turnout election,” Kenski said of the primary for Kolbe’s District 8 seat. Fewer than 1 in 4 of the Republicans registered in the district are expected to vote Sept. 7.

Graf also is working hard in rural areas of the district – areas he perceives are especially receptive to his conservative philosophy. His schedule recently included speeches in Sierra Vista (twice), Sonoita, Green Valley (twice), Douglas, Rio Rico, Nogales, Marana, Benson and Pinal County, with only a smattering of Tucson appearances.

But Graf will not beat Kolbe without strong support in Pima County – home to 78 percent of the district’s voters.

Who is Graf counting on? “They are basically people who feel the country has gone to hell in a handbasket,” Kenski said. “They think we are a nation in moral decline, and it’s very upsetting to them.”

People on one side of the “value chasm.”

Mark Kimble’s column appears on Thursdays. He also appears at 6:30 and midnight Fridays on the Roundtable segment of “Arizona Illustrated” on KUAT-TV, Channel 6. Phone: 573-4662; fax: 573-4569; e-mail: mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com

The Arizona Republic

The Arizona Republic

PHOENIX – To the thunderous roar of 15,000 supporters chanting, “Four more years,” President Bush yesterday promised Arizonans that his re-election would mean a safer nation, stronger economy and brighter future for all Americans.

“We have much more to do,” Bush said repeatedly at Phoenix Veterans Memorial Coliseum as he listed top accomplishments of his administration in education, health care, job creation, tax cuts and, evoking the biggest cheers of the night, the wars on terrorism and in Iraq.

Introduced by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., his rival in 2000, as a president “who will not waver” in fighting terrorism, Bush gave McCain a quick hug. He later referred to the former Vietnam prisoner of war as “a great American and a fine citizen of this state, a person who served his nation with distinction and honor.”

In his 45-minute speech, Bush solidified his commitment to what is coming to be known as the Bush Doctrine, which says preemptive attacks are warranted if evidence shows a threat, instead of adhering to an international code of not striking the first blow in any conflict.

Chronicling the abuses of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Bush said, “We saw a threat. We remembered a vital lesson of September 11, and that lesson is: We must take threats seriously before they fully materialize.”

He said his choice was, “Do I trust the word and deeds of a madman, or do I take action to defend America?”

“I will defend America every time,” he said.

The crowd’s reaction throughout the speech underscored the strong approval many Arizonans have indicated for Bush’s defense and security postures in two Arizona Republic Polls since June.

Speaking with rolled-up shirt sleeves, Bush was flanked by a seating section in which supporters, dressed in red or white, were seated to create a huge red “W.” Above them was a banner proclaiming, “God loves you, President Bush.”

Bush’s speech was studded with occasional barbs against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, a U.S. senator from North Carolina.

Bush ridiculed what he cast as a “new nuance” Kerry has added to his stance on the war.

“After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons that we all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power,” Bush said.

“I want to thank my opponent for clearing that up. But just remember, there are 83 days left in the campaign, time enough to change his mind again.”

Kerry campaign officials and the Democratic National Committee heatedly denounced Bush’s comments as a distortion of what Kerry said yesterday in an interview.

Kerry, who voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, said he still would have voted that way if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction, but he said that as president, “I would have used that authority effectively.”

PHOTO CAPTIONS: JACK KURTZ/The Arizona Republic

President Bush and U.S. Sen. John McCain hug after McCain introduced Bush at a rally yesterday at Phoenix’s Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

President Bush hugs an apparently unhappy baby at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix yesterday.

Citizen Staff

Market’s strong for political books

Bush bashing a growth industry; Kerry also takes hits

By C.T. REVERE

ctrevere@tucsoncitizen.com

People looking to reinforce their opinions – or form new ones – about the two men battling for the White House can find plenty of fodder on local bookstore shelves.

Publishing houses are pumping out political books at a rate that would stagger even speed-reading election junkies.

“There are a lot of political books being published and, more significantly, the market for them is stronger than it has been since Watergate,” said Charlotte Abbott, book news editor at Publisher’s Weekly magazine. “The predominance of political books on the best-seller’s list has not waned this summer, when non-fiction sales typically wane.”

By far the most dominant theme is Bush-bashing.

Publishing houses released about 25 books criticizing President Bush in the first half of 2004 and that number is expected to double before Election Day, USA TODAY reported.

Tucsonan Dorothy Anderson, a veteran political observer wearing a trio of buttons proclaiming her Democratic leanings, is impressed.

“I’m 93, and I’ve never seen so many political books in my life – ever,” she said while shopping at Barnes & Noble Booksellers at 5130 E. Broadway. “People are getting more and more concerned about politics and it’s giving them more of a sense of our leaders and who we’re choosing.”

Two anti-Bush tomes are on the Barnes & Noble nonfiction paperback best sellers, said Andrew Greeley, community relations manager at the midtown store.

“Al Franken and, of course, Michael Moore, are still up there,” Greeley said. “They have been for a while.”

Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” was seventh on the soft-cover nonfiction list at Barnes & Noble last week. Moore, whose documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is making his case in theaters, is appealing to literary voters with “Dude, Where’s My Country?” That book sits in the No. 10 spot among the chain’s best sellers.

Moore’s book also holds the No. 8 spot at Borders.

The conservative answer to Moore comes from Tucson attorney David Hardy, who has co-penned a book titled “Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man” that attempts to debunk the filmmaker’s efforts.

Democratic nominee John Kerry takes his hits in “The Many Faces of John Kerry: Why the Massachusetts Liberal is Wrong for America,” by David N. Bossie

Part of the reason that anti-Bush books dominate the shelves right now is that the industry hasn’t had time to publish many books on Kerry since he emerged as his party’s choice, Publisher’s Weekly’s Abbott said.

Conservative authors such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Dr. Laura Schlesinger had their moments following 9/11, Abbott said.

“Now the liberals are getting their turn,” she said.

A handful of books attempt to paint an unbiased picture of the candidates and some even try to help undecided voters make the right choice.

But peruse the “In the News” display at Barnes & Noble and you’ll find such titles as “Bush Must Go: Top Ten Reasons Why George Bush Doesn’t Deserve a Second Term” by Bill Press, and “Bush on the Couch,” psychiatrist Justin Frank’s analysis of the president that proclaims “you’ll understand why the Bushes are so afraid of psychoanalysis.”

The Bush economy comes under fire in “Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate.” by Robert Bryce.

The president’s environmental record is the target of the newly released “Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy,” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and “Bush Versus the Environment” by Robert S. Devine.

The only political book among the top sellers that seems to appeal to everyone is “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which Borders can’t keep on the shelves, said Michael Fenlason, operations manager for Borders at Park Place.

“That one’s been huge. It’s the only nonpartisan book selling well,” he said.

COMMENTS

www.tucsoncitizen.com

Get into the conversation. Read – and respond to – political letters online at www.tucsoncitizen.com/election.

PHOTO CAPTION: Photos by FRANCISCO MEDINA/Tucson Citizen

Dave Cochran peruses a display of about 75 political books at Barnes & Noble Booksellers, 5130 E. Broadway.

(Bookcovers of 2 books; no caption)

Citizen Staff

Wrong Grijalva speech achieves positive results

The speech U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva delivered on the third day of the Democratic National Convention in Boston wasn’t exactly what the Kerry-Edwards campaign wanted to hear.

Grijalva’s five-minute nomination speech for Democratic running-mate John Edwards, which he opened by repeatedly posing the question, “Where’s the compassion?” to President Bush, was supposed to be scrapped, Grijalva spokeswoman Natalie Luna said.

“Raúl wrote a speech and they wanted to change it a bit to make it more about Mr. Edwards. Raúl was going to read the speech that they agreed upon, which was not the one he had originally written,” she said.

But early in his speech, the teleprompter at the FleetCenter failed, forcing campaign workers to reload the text for Grijalva to read, she said.

“When they reloaded the prompter, it was with the speech he had originally written,” Luna said. “He realized it was a mistake, but what could he do? He couldn’t stop in the middle of the speech. He was on a national stage.”

While the speech was not what the Kerry-Edwards campaign hoped to hear, it got good reviews, Luna said.

“We had nothing but positive phone calls after that,” Luna said. “It’s been a really positive, good experience for him.”

- C.T. Revere

Graf wants to help Kolbe retire

The folks at Randy Graf’s congressional campaign are brimming with confidence these days.

Before the Green Valley Republican took the podium at a press conference last week, his campaign spokesman, Steve Aiken, proclaimed, “We’re going to win this thing. You heard it here first.”

In an earlier telephone call regarding incumbent Rep. Jim Kolbe’s absence during Vice President Dick Cheney’s Tucson visit, Aiken wondered if Kolbe was “so arrogant he doesn’t think he needs to campaign” or if he knew his 20 years in Congress is about to end and “decided to save his campaign dollars for retirement.”

While Graf, whose state legislative district encompasses about a quarter of Kolbe’s congressional District 8, offers more of a challenge than previous primary foes, history suggests he faces a difficult task.

Since winning what was then the District 5 seat from Democrat Jim McNulty in 1984, Kolbe dispatched primary foes with ease and had only slightly stiffer competition in general elections.

The closest any primary opponent has come in the past decade is a 40-point trouncing and the closest any Republican has come was when Michael Beehler managed to garner 35 percent to Kolbe’s 65 percent.

Kolbe’s campaign manager, state Sen. Toni Hellon, doesn’t expect such a lopsided victory against Graf, but she’s every bit as confident of Kolbe as Aiken is about his man.

“Jim Kolbe will win this primary,” she said. “He won’t say that because he’s never been arrogant during his campaigns.”

As for missing Cheney’s visit, Kolbe was on a long-scheduled Alaskan vacation when the Bush-Cheney campaign made plans to visit Tucson, she said.

“And anyone who knows anything about FEC rules knows you can’t put campaign money away for retirement,” Hellon added.

Yeah. There’s that.

- C.T. Revere

CALENDAR

Thursday – Democratic candidates for Congressional District 8 speak at the Nucleus Club, 5:30-7 p.m. at Viscount Suites, 4855 E. Broadway.

Saturday – Republican candidates for state and county offices at Tucson Republican Women’s breakfast forum. Program starts 8:30 a.m. at Tucson Country Club, 2950 N. Camino Principal.

Sept. 7 – Primary election

Sept. 30 – Early voting for general election begins.

Oct. 4 – Deadline to register for general election

Nov. 2 – General election

Readers

By Robert Fabio

We need a leader who can unite – not divide – us

I have to agree with Bruce P. Murchison (“Democratic scare tactics won’t beat Bush,” July 22 guest opinion) that George W. Bush could win by a landslide – not because he’s a good leader, but because the Republicans with their ace in the hole will outsmart the Democrats again.

If Kerry (gains) too much of a bounce, or develops too great a lead, Vice President Dick Cheney likely will pull out of the race citing “health reasons,” leaving the door open for an unstoppable Bush-McCain or Bush-Powell ticket.

Either one would make Bush more palatable. But as many knowing people feel, with any Bush victory, the country loses.

Mr. Murchison asks us to remember the universal support for President Bush after 9/11. I say remember him before 9/11, when his administration was ridiculed for inactivity on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Back then, his ratings were unfavorable. But after 9/11, they soared.

Now, after many mistakes, his ratings have fallen. Why then can’t people explain their opposition to the president? Probably because there are so many reasons, people are left speechless trying to select one.

However, if there’s one reason, it is this: The president has corrupted the unity, support and compassion we had for him after 9/11 by promoting his administration’s divisive agenda. I cringe every time I hear one of his deriding sound bites.

How dare Bush insult us with his: “If we’re not with him, we’re anti-American?” An American is one who thinks and voices opinions, and when confronted by an enemy, we Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, fight to preserve our liberty.

We need a leader who can unite, not divide, who can comprehend both sides of an issue and work out win-win solutions. Bush is not such a leader. His values do not foster liberties. On every issue, following his values, we get no win-win results. It’s his way or the highway, and there always will be losers.

Speaking of losers, considering the president’s problems, why hasn’t Kerry generated a larger following? Democrats seem to be in awe of the Republican steamroller, its deriding of liberals and calling Kerry the most liberal senator. Why in this day and age are liberals automatically considered losers or not patriotic? Haven’t as many liberals laid down their lives for their country as any other group?

Liberalism is the freedom to pursue one’s liberty, to favor the overall good for people. Thus I would categorize 90 percent of Americans as liberal.

However, if a person has achieved significant wealth and comfort, they tend to want to maintain such, to conserve what they have and take on conservative viewpoints: “Let’s not change anything to jeopardize our status.” This conservatism serves them well for a while. But when approaching death, many make amends by becoming liberal again.

I find it amazing that although most Americans are sensitive, generous and liberal at heart, when influenced by divisive single issues, they support conservatives and vote against their own best interest.

Let’s end the notion that liberals are losers. We may be unorganized, but that will change because liberals have the ability to promote and achieve win-win outcomes.

History shows many liberal achievers in our past, but for brevity, I’ll note just four:

• John F. Kennedy, in his day, received flawed intelligence leading to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. But unlike the current administration, Kennedy accepted responsibility for that failure. He wanted us to pursue a liberal agenda by saying “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Are we losing touch with that honorable goal? Are our conservative leaders causing us to think “me first,” disregarding the overall good?

Later, during the height of the Cold War, Kennedy avoided a World War III by negotiating a peaceful resolution to the Cuban missile crisis. With the armed forces on alert and thousands of itchy fingers that could have triggered a nuclear holocaust, Kennedy negotiated a peaceful win-win resolution limiting casualties to one. Today, millions are alive because a liberal president didn’t rush off to war.

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated many programs during the Great Depression to restore the economy, get people working, help the needy and improve the infrastructure. This wasn’t done with “voodoo, trickle-down economics,” but with what we should call “bubble up, can-do economics.” He also initiated the Social Security System to help the elderly live more comfortably. FDR restored hope with his “All we have to fear is fear itself” speech. We don’t fear much with our military might today, but we should fear the lack of education and our inability to comprehend issues, which leads us to blindly follow arrogant, self-serving leadership.

• Seventy years before FDR, when our nation was facing its biggest challenge, the Civil War, liberal Republican and former trial lawyer Abraham Lincoln served our country. We know Republicans also can be liberal. Lincoln pledged that “a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from this earth.” In today’s two-tiered society, our president’s policies are more like a nation “of the powerful, by the powerful, for the powerful.” We need to restore the people through education and, as Lincoln stated, with “malice toward none” and “charity for all.”

• Finally, we must not forget that in our heritage was the greatest liberal of all time. He talked of peace, not war; love, not hate; compassion, not intolerance; all of which we so dearly need today.

He said all we need is to have love for God and for our fellow man. Yes, liberals be proud. We’re in the best of company. Remember that 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ was also a liberal.

Robert Fabio (robertf@djscomp.com), owner and operator of DJ’s Computers, is an education activist.

Billie Stanton COLUMN

‘Protect Arizona Now’ erects barriers to voting

Billie Stanton

Citizen Editorial Writer

If “Protect Arizona Now” isn’t a racist initiative, then I’m a tall, rich redhead. The initiative, officially The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, wouldn’t protect my taxpaying citizen cousins, that’s for sure.

My Miller cousins – several related by marriage, two by blood – are considerably more qualified to be called “citizens” than most Arizonans.

Their family got here first.

But under this spurious initiative, my Tohono O’odham cousins and every other Native American in Arizona would be forbidden to vote unless they produced a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.

Puh-lease.

The progressive Indians in the Miller family are too busy pursuing law degrees or making judicial rulings from the bench to worry about proving themselves as card-carrying tribal members.

They’ve proven themselves already, thank you very much.

But what about the old Navajo woman living in the same hogan where she was born, somewhere on those wind-swept northern plateaus?

Do these “law” drafters honestly believe people like her bother to obtain a number from the BIA? Of course they don’t believe that. But I suspect they do believe that it never hurts to erect obstacles to any people of color who might one day decide to vote.

Aside from the extraordinarily specific assault on American Indians, this ludicrous amendment also would demand proof of citizenship from all the rest of us, too, whether via birth certificate, passport or “naturalization documents.”

I was born an American, but I was born in England. So the birth certificate wouldn’t do me much good.

The passport might raise more questions than it answered, since it documents visits abroad and to Central America, where (gasp!) hordes of aspiring illegal immigrants huddle, wringing their hands as they plot how they might sneak into these here United States and fudge a way to vote in all our elections.

Puh-lease.

I’ve known an illegal immigrant or two in my time, and they all share one interesting characteristic: They’re terrified of any American authority figure.

Not only would they never, ever, not in this lifetime try to enter a U.S. voting booth, but they also would rather writhe in pain than risk discovery by going to an American doctor or hospital.

And with few exceptions, they’re not about to march into the state Department of Economic Security to demand any form of welfare.

If you’ve worn out 14 pairs worth of shoe leather making your way to this country to try to find honest but menial work, would you really jeopardize it all for an unlikely handout? Dubious.

Illegal immigrants lurk in our shadows, doing their best to remain undetected. When Arizona hospitals receive reimbursement for treating illegal immigrants who can’t pay their medical bills, many if not most of those patients were brought to the hospitals by the very U.S. authority figures they had been trying to avoid.

But perhaps the most pernicious part of Protect Arizona Now is its very push to impose barricades to voting – even as fewer and fewer Americans exercise that right, one of the most precious we enjoy.

Do these folks really want to erode the voting population even further? Their agenda is especially troubling considering that voter fraud hasn’t been proved in this state in many, many decades. In Florida in 2000, maybe, but not here.

But I digress. I do empathize with people’s fears about the steep increase in illegal immigration, especially during this age of terrorism. I even harbor affection for former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, despite his anti-immigrant alliance with neocon U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Lamm, after all, pulled Colorado out of contention for the Olympics back in the ’70s, citing concerns for the environment. But everybody in Colorado knew Lamm as the antigrowth governor, who would do whatever it took to keep the state population static.

Now he’s deeply troubled by immigration into the United States. I am, too. I suspect none of us want our children to be in a land as crowded as ours has become, much less even more populated.

But overpopulation is a global problem, not an Arizona border problem. And if Americans want to enjoy the cheap thrills of materialism via a global economy, they’d better start recognizing the needs of a global community as well. And they’d better get used to the fact that our globe includes many people of color.

As for Arizonans, surely we’re savvy enough to appreciate our diversity – and our predecessors. I just hope we’re all smart enough to defeat this extremely destructive effort to “Pervert Arizona Now.”

Billie Stanton’s column appears on Tuesdays. E-mail bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com, phone 573-4664, fax 573-4569.

Citizen Staff
Joseph Garcia COLUMN

Journalists’ behavior fodder for bias charges

WASHINGTON – George Bush or John Kerry? The question is simple and seemingly black and white, given that polls show the vast majority of Americans already know which candidate they’ll vote for in November.

But few voters have had the privilege of seeing both candidates up front and in person for nearly an hour apiece on successive days. I was among the fortunate last week at Unity 2004, a national conference for journalists of color.

Kerry spoke on Thursday, Bush on Friday.

The rhetoric was rich – and predictable.

Bush is tough on terror; Kerry vows to be tougher.

Kerry promises economic change; Bush says we’re already well on our way.

Both tout their commitment to ethnic diversity and ethnic representation, as they’ve done elsewhere and not just in front of 7,000 minority journalists.

But what wasn’t so predictable was the reaction among fellow journalists at Kerry’s appearance and my reaction to Bush’s.

Kerry was stiff as ever, but he drew nothing but enthusiastic applause for his mostly recycled slogans and canned messages from the Democratic National Convention.

I found that disturbing – not that Kerry’s message of staying on message was beginning to get lost in monotony, but that journalists were applauding.

I’m not talking about polite applause at his introduction. I’m talking about frequent applause (50 times, by some counts), as if Kerry were the candidate of minority journalists.

Those who believe we have a liberal-biased media in this country could certainly point to this episode as an example.

“They were broadcasters,” quipped an embarrassed Dino Chiecchi of The Associated Press in Dallas.

We on the print side of the news media like to believe, true or not, we’re a little deeper because we are more in-depth in our coverage. Plus, most of us can spell.

My explanation is that journalists of color converged on Washington in a convention setting and among old friends felt free to let their hair down and checked their journalism at the door. Perhaps it’s similar to a police association’s convention, where a few cops no doubt may find themselves with buddies at a strip bar and perhaps have a few beers too many and still get behind the wheel.

I’m not saying that latter scenario happens, only that it’s possible because we’re all human here and apt to display poor judgment at times. Some Unity journalists certainly did that last week, in my opinion.

Anyway, I was glad that most of the colleagues whose opinions I’ve trusted over the years felt pretty much the same: Journalists have the same rights as anyone else, but we have an additional duty of professionalism when it comes to politics.

In other words, vote for whomever you want to, talk politics freely among friends and family, but don’t plaster your candidate’s bumper stickers all over your car if you hope to retain any semblance of fair-and-balanced trustworthiness.

The applause was a verbal bumper sticker, so much so that O. Ricardo Pimentel, editorial page editor of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and co-chairman of the Unity planning committee, feared “rudeness” when Bush would appear the next day.

It didn’t happen. The president was met with a standing ovation because he was The President. But while his speech drew a smattering of polite applause, it was never really interrupted by roaring hand claps or cheers, although a convention-crasher did briefly heckle Bush before the protester was escorted out of the Washington Convention Center.

Perhaps stories in USA TODAY and other newspapers reporting on the Kerry response at Unity had pre-empted any rudeness for the president, although I would like to believe fellow journalists simply reflected on their less-than-professional actions the day before and did not require any prompting.

That would not have surprised me. What did surprise me was my own reaction to Bush.

Politics aside, I wouldn’t mind going fishing with the guy, just me and him in a small boat on the lake. He came across as personable and humorous in his speech, not stuffy, condescending or defensive – despite some tough questions from panelists.

I told a newspaper reporter from Florida who interviewed me after the speech that journalists tossed underhand softballs to Kerry, but tried to bean Bush when he came to the plate. I doubt my comments will be greeted with applause from many Unity journalists, but that is my belief.

After Bush’s speech, as other journalists filed out, I had the opportunity to shake the president’s hand since I was sitting close to the stage.

I considered it an honor to do so. I would have asked Bush to go on a fishing trip right then and there, but it was neither the time nor the place. I was simply a newsman respectfully acknowledging the leader of the free world. And no, I don’t consider a handshake the sound of one hand clapping.

Senior Editor Joseph Garcia’s column appears Mondays. Contact him at 573-4561 or by e-mail at jgarcia@tucsoncitizen.com.

PHOTO CAPTIONS: Photos by VAL CAÑEZ/Tucson Citizen

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry speaks Thursday to Unity 2004, a convention for journalists of color.

President Bush speaks to the Unity convention Friday. The gathering in Washington, D.C. brought together more than 7,000 minority journalists for five days.

Anti-Kerry ad

pulls campaign

into the gutter

The presidential campaign has stumbled into the gutter with a new television ad accusing Sen. John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record.

Sen. John McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran, has quite properly denounced the ad although he and Kerry are from opposite political parties. Ironically, the independent ad was funded and broadcast by a group exploiting a loophole in a campaign finance reform bill co-authored by McCain.

While serving in Vietnam in the U.S. Navy, Kerry earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts as a swift boat commander.

But the 200-member Swift Boat Veterans for Truth questions Kerry’s record. In the ad, one veteran said “John Kerry is no war hero” and another said, “John Kerry cannot be trusted.”

McCain quickly condemned the ad, saying, “I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals (in the ad) served on the boat (Kerry) commanded.”

McCain is absolutely right. We left Vietnam 30 years ago. The nation’s focus – and the focus of this election – must be on what is happening today and what Kerry and President Bush foresee.

Attack ads against either candidate have no place in this campaign – especially not attack ads about something that happened three decades ago.

The group airing the ad is taking advantage of a loophole in campaign reform legislation signed into law by Bush in 2002.

The law, written by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., prohibited candidates and political parties from accepting soft money – the large, unlimited contributions made by unions, corporations and very wealthy individuals.

But federal law still allows private committees to raise unlimited donations and run advertisements if they do not expressly call for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. The Swift Boat Veterans’ ad skirts that requirement by trashing Kerry, but not urging a vote against him or for Bush.

McCain told The Associated Press that the Bush campaign should “specifically condemn the ad.” But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush’s campaign stopped short of that, saying, “The Bush-Cheney campaign has never and will never question John Kerry’s service during Vietnam. The election will not be about the past, it will be about the future.”

That’s not good enough. Bush should call on the veterans group to stop running the ad.

The Vietnam War is over. Stop the petty political bickering and nitpicking and talk about the future of this country. That’s what the voters of America care about and that’s what we want to hear discussed.

Finally gone

It took far too long, but thankfully two Catholic priests have finally been removed from their clerical positions by the Diocese of Tucson.

Monsignor Robert Trupia and the Rev. Michael Teta were suspended in the early 1990s after what church officials said were credible allegations of sexual misconduct involving children.

They were not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired.

But the two stayed on the diocese payroll until last week as they fought laicization – the process of removing them from the priesthood.

That process finally has ended. It is unfortunate it took all this time.

The Associated Press

Kerry promises Indian voters better health care

The Associated Press

FLAGSTAFF – Facing a tight race in a state that usually favors Republican presidential candidates, Democrat John Kerry courted American Indian voters by promising them better health care.

“We spend more on federal prisoners’ health insurance than we do on Native Americans’,” Kerry said, lamenting that one third of Indians don’t have health insurance.

The nominee’s stops in Arizona are meant to appeal to rural and Indian voters whose support could prove decisive in the November election.

“If we could really increase voter turnout in the tribal communities, that could be huge in this state,” Arizona Democratic Chairman Jim Pederson said.

Before his campaign train arrived in Arizona, Kerry attended an intertribal ceremony in New Mexico, where he said he would uphold treaties with the nation’s tribes.

This trip marks Kerry’s third to Arizona since winning its Democratic primary in February.

Kerry, whose train also made a brief stop yesterday in Winslow, was to travel to the Grand Canyon and Kingman today as part of a postconvention swing through 21 states.

Danny Diaz, a spokesman for President Bush’s re-election campaign, said Kerry’s economic and military policy plans are out of step with voters in the West.

“He is a hard sell in Arizona,” Diaz said.

The Arizona Republic

The Arizona Republic

The public can see President Bush at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix on Wednesday, campaign workers confirmed last night.

To get through the doors at 3 p.m., audience members must first get the free tickets, said Arizona Republican Party spokesman Colin McCracken. Doors will close at 5 p.m. and the event is expected to begin at 6 p.m., said Blanca Esparza, a spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney ’04 Campaign.

Request tickets from either Bush-Cheney ’04 at (866) 642-2874 or the state party at (602) 957-7770.