Posted by
tohu.vavohu on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:28:00 AM
I guessed that this would happen some time ago. It was obvious, especially how they handled the stories they wanted to print. To the people of Arizona, The Arizona Republic has recommended we vote for Janet Napolitano.
They say that "...Napolitano's emphasis on education has kept Arizona's focus right where it should be..." I thought our education system was in last place (2)? Is that were the focus should be?
The Republic also says, "...Napolitano tackled what seemed an intractable problem: the failure of
an overburdened Child Protective Services to protect children." Really? In a recent article the Phoenix New Times (2) even points out staggering numbers to the contrary. Sure Napolitano gave "...more money, more training for caseworkers, more new programs to reach at-risk families..." but how well is that protecting our children? Phoenix New Times points out "...even more children in Arizona [are] dying from maltreatment than before Napolitano took office..." That Napolitano removed children "...before the agency had the infrastructure in place to handle them... ...there were only about 6,200 children in foster care when she took office; by June 2006, there were a staggering 10,166... ... and so the influx of foster kids meant even more work for a staff that was already grossly overburdened..." But is seems like Napolitano has the idea that the kid should be taken as quick as possible just in case noted when she gave a "...public directive to err on the side of safety." It has only recently been stated in the CPS report that in the last six months we have finally removed less kids since Ms. Napolitano took office, but it is still far "...more than in the last period under [former Governor] Hull." Even the workers say "...they're too busy to do their job properly." Are the children safer?
The Republic also states that when she began dealing with the border issue "...Napolitano began sending invoices to Washington in a futile, but symbolic and necessary effort to prod the federal government..." Futile? Ok, then do something. And... That sounds about right. But for her record and her new stance on the border. I remember Napolitano wanting to give illegal immigrants driver licenses. I remember Napolitano denouncing a border fence by saying "You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works..." But that was a long time ago, and I am sure things have changed since then. Wait, that's right!!! It has actually been less than a year since she said that. Less than a year!!! She admitted recently that she would still vote no for a fence. Now "...Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee..." points out "...Janet Napolitano has said two conflicting things about border fences -- first, that they don't work, and second, that the California fence has worked so well that it has driven border crossers into Arizona."
I have heard this mentioned infrequently and it deserves to be noted but if you look at Napolitona's record on the border issue, it has only been something she has addressed within the last year. Not even a year. She started to make some type of effort earlier this year, after January of February. It wasn't until this years 'state of the state' address that she even took steps to provide for our border problem. In 2005's 'state of the state' address she repeatedly stated how it wasn't our responsibility but the government, Washington. This may be true but if they aren't doing anything, someone should step up and fill the gap till Washington gets in line with the rest of us. 2004's 'state of the state' address only references how considerable attention was given to homeland security, the alert was "orange" and that we conducted the "...first-in-the-nation border security exercise..." "Border" is never mentioned in her 2003 'state of the state' address. Check it out, you may come to the same conclusion that I have come to. She has only concerned herself with the border in the past year to garner more votes in this upcoming general election. I haven't lived in Arizona my whole life but for the last 10+ years I have lived here there has always been a problem with the border. Unfortunately it has gotten graver since. I think her record is deplorable on the border, especially knowing that this is how it has been handled since an event such as September 11, 2001.
The Republic also talks about Janet's vetoes and that they have protected us from "...measures detrimental to the state..." With Napolitano breaking veto records, would you call "...measures to require an expanded National Guard deployment along the border, create a new tax break for companies' donations for private school scholarships and tighten an existing law requiring parental consent for minors to have abortions..." detrimental to the state? They sound non-detrimental to me. They sound like good measures in fact. And those vetoes were in the last year.
And this is only touching on a few of the discrepancies on the Republic's recommendation.
Has Napolitano really "...built an impressive record of accomplishments"? "On Nov. 7..." is "...Janet Napolitano... ...the clear choice for the future"?
Fortunately, the Arizona Republic allowed Len Munsil to give his reasons as to why Napolitano isn't the clear choice for the future (2). It's where Munsil gives his take on her real "...record of accomplishments." It is an quick article worth reading.
~tohu vavohu