Oh, today is December 2, 2010 on David Berman and Professor Emeritus of
Political Science at Arizona State University and I'm interviewing Matt
Weissman who was with the staff of Congressman Harry Mitchell of the 5th
Congressional District, I've had the chance to go over your resume. So I
have a good idea where you're, where you've been and a lot of experience
working with candidates and Illinois, particularly how did you happen to
hook up with Harry, what was your first contact there? Actually, it was uh
somewhat uh indirectly I was invited, I was worked in politics previously
at the time, I was practicing law in Chicago and I got a call from someone
invited me to come interview out of the Arizona Democratic Party For a
communications director position. And when I flew out there at the time,
Harry Mitchell was the chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party. So I met
him when he interviewed me for that job, that was what, 2005, I think when
you were in 2005 and he was chair And you were, I guess communications
director for a coordinated campaign and 4006 at the Arizona Democratic
Party, I was the communications director. Yeah, I see you got involved in
that campaign? Yeah. At the party, obviously we were uh working to try to
elect democrats to hold a whole slate of offices. How did you look at that
situation compared to, were you in Chicago before then or in Illinois. But
yeah, I grew up in Chicago originally from there. So obviously it's very,
very different politics in in the phoenix metro area than the Chicago
metropolitan area. So how was that different? Oh, uh, ironically, actually
one of the things that I discovered, I had never been to Arizona actually
prior to ultimately interviewing and then coming out to work out there and
I was actually pleasantly surprised to find out how many, how many
chicagoans and how many Midwesterners had relocated there. So it was
actually quite easy to adapt. But obviously, the kinds of issues that were
first and foremost on the minds of voters in Arizona slightly different
than those on the minds of folks in Chicago in Illinois. I know, as you
mentioned, you did some work on JD Hayworth, there's investigations into
JD Hayworth and uh Wound up being in Henry's opponent in the congressional
race. We did uh we at the time actually going into the 2006 cycle, the
sort of uh most of the
races that most people were interested in looking ahead at 2006 was the
gubernatorial re elect for governor, napolitano as well as the Senate race.
Jim Peterson was challenging Senator Jon Kyl at the time. So actually,
initially people weren't really paying too much attention to the
congressional races, There wasn't much thought that there was going to be
much turnover in the congressional delegation and uh trying to think
exactly when, but sort of late in 2005, I believe then uh congressman Jim
kolbe announced that he was going to retire. So race opened up in, in
Southern Arizona. And uh, and then as we were sort of working to try to
encourage folks to take a look at democratic candidates. Uh, we uh,
started learning some things about Congressman Hayworth, that we're not
just sort of partisan, but things that we found that odd independents and
republicans were not very pleased with. So, uh, we definitely worked to
try to draw some attention to that. It was harry a candidate. Them, no,
not at all, he was not. And this was not something that he was planning to
do. This was not something he really sought out, which was really, it was
, it was very much an unintended candidacy. What happened was as we
started trying to bring more attention to some of the things that
congressman Hayworth had been involved with, for example, uh, it was uh,
it was discovered that he had put his wife on his political action
committees payroll. So I think they estimated at the time upwards of
$100,000 had gone to his wife out of his political action committees
payroll, which was not illegal, but obviously was concerning to a lot of
folks. And as that information sort of came out, a lot of folks were Sort
of wondering, well, toward what end this was a member who had been in
Congress for 12 years up until these sort of revelation started coming out
, had had been in pretty good political standing. And folks were kind of
wondering, well, Does this mean anyone is going to run against him? And if
so, who and at the time, Harry Mitchell was chairman of the State Party
and he was also finishing his last term in the Arizona State Senate. She
was term limited out, and I think he was about 65, years old and really
getting ready to to be retired. And uh, a lot of folks then got excited
about the opportunity to to make a race in the fifth congressional
district and started encouraging him to run for Congress. And uh, after a
lot of urging, he finally agreed to do it. You you left before the
election in the summer of six, I think I did. We were fortunate enough
that the what we discovered about Congressman Hayworth and and also the
launch of Harry Mitchell's race for Congress got a lot of national
attention because that year, a lot of national democrats were running on a
platform of against a culture of corruption, I think, was a term that they
were using. And Jack Abramoff was very much in the news that year. And
what happened was, we had created a apparently, a race had come about in
Arizona, that sort of played into a lot of these national narratives. And
so in about april of that year, shortly after the congressman had declared
his candidacy, or actually, maybe slightly before, uh, Congressman
Hayworth appeared on meet the Press with tim Russert and immigration was a
huge issue that year, and it was a panel of guests that we're talking
about immigration. And Congressman Hayworth had been very much involved in
the in that debate. And uh at the end of the the show on meet the Press,
the last two or three minutes of the show, tim Russert turned to
Congressman Hayworth and really started questioning him very directly
about some of the revelations that have come to light in Arizona. And he
even mentioned his wife being on the political action committees payroll.
And even mentioned that there was someone named terry Mitchell that was
going to be running against him and that uh that they meet the press would
be watching this race very closely. So, when that happened, we we
obviously received a lot of calls at the State Party asking, what had we
done, what, what had worked, um what have we tried to do? And so, I was
asked by some folks at the National Party to go work on a race for brad
Ellsworth in southern indiana, who was also running his first time for
Congress at that time, and obviously was very, very hard to leave, but I
talked it over with uh, with the congressman. And were you surprised Harry
won that race? Uh, I wasn't surprised, But we knew it was a very uphill
battle. I mean, this was this was not a gimme by any stretch, even with an
, uh, an embattled Congressman that we were trying to unseat. This was a
district that was, uh, I think at the time, about 44% of voters were
registered Republicans, were registered Democrats. This was by no means
going to be a cakewalk. But what actually helped us was, uh, the district
congressman Hayworth, his views also on immigration, which was an
immigration reform, which was one of the preeminent issues that year, had
sort of become out of tune with the sentiment in the district. He was very
much against immigration reform, and what we discovered is we talked to
more and more voters across the district, even a lot of republicans were
wanted to fix the immigration system, secure the border, but also fix the
system that was just so broken. And so that I think that helped a lot as
well, that I think people were sort of frustrated that nothing had been
done and, and we're eager to try to uh, look for a change. But I think
what also helped harry Mitchell in particular, he was probably the only
person who could have won that year because of his, his longstanding roots
in the community and his prior record of really working across the aisle
in a very bipartisan manner. Uh, this was clearly someone who who was
absolutely a Democratic candidate, but was not somebody that was going to
be really, uh, strongly ideologically and reflexively opposed to any idea
that would come from a Republican or an independent, he would happily
partnered with them to try to solve problems. So after the election then
you got a call to come to Washington or did you? Oh yeah, I I had uh
obviously even even being in indiana had been in close touch with everyone
in Arizona and I'm watching very closely and actually election wasn't
decided right on election night. It was close enough that they were
waiting for remaining balance to be counted. So we were all very watching
very intently to see if what happened on election night, if the result
would hold up and he would ultimately prevail. So that delay got you an
office in this building. It did, it actually had a had an unexpected
benefit. The the House of Representatives very quickly after an election,
they go through their office lottery where members move offices and new
members select their offices. But because the race had not been called a
congressman, Hayworth was not yet asked to give up his office. So they ran
the lottery, everyone picked their offices. And then by the time the race
was called, we just ended up inheriting congressman Hayworth's office
space, which was Uh he had 12 years of seniority in the house. So it was
not not a typical office space for a freshman member, you became Deputy
Chief of Staff Legislative Director and counsel for the congressman
ultimately ultimately started out as the most, so this is where you spend
most of your retirement Legislative Director then, and uh, and just
keeping them informed and uh, as the developments drafting legislation and
this is sure the whole gamut of activities there. Yeah, yeah. Uh, one
article I read about the staff here is that it's a pretty congenial group
to making decisions. You sort of had a devil's advocate in the group and
you argue back and forth before decisions about what to sponsor what goes
into a bill. The kind of things like that. Absolutely. And that's
something that congressman very much encouraged. I mean, he always wanted
to know every side of every issue, uh, and wants to know what, what we
were hearing from constituents who are calling and writing in what we've
heard in and around the district and also other information relating to it
, what else was going on relating to it in Washington and in other places.
So there's a lot of heated arguments sometimes and oh, for sure. For sure.
Um, but always, always, I think respectfully, obviously we all got along
great. Still get along great. So I was just thinking about the broader
political environment, uh, seemed like the most important factor affecting
your relations with other party leaders or the legislation you adopted or
supported was the fact that he was a democrat in a heavily Republican
district. And it seems to me there was, it was, you had to be fairly
careful about what you did well, you know what, what's fascinating about
that is he, how district focused he has always been, uh, that a lot of
folks come to the House of Representatives and it's uh considered sort of
a stepping stone, they want to get elected to the House because then they
want to use that as a platform to run for some other office. And really
congressman Mitchell, he got elected to the House and he was just really
eager to, to serve and try to do, uh, the best he could for for his home
district. He was not trying to ultimately run for Senate or or find some
other office. So he was very, very focused on just the district and in
that way really was intent on hearing from everybody in the district and
made it took great pains to reach out to not just the folks that voted for
him, but the folks who voted against him and, and really spend a lot of
quality time with them to hear from them, understand their views, listen
to their concerns. Um, and when things would come up, he would always
instruct us to make sure we were reaching out to people that even if
people weren't calling in and asking and registering their opinions that
we were getting out and and asking them for their opinions before they
even called us and register their opinions. The party leaders would
recognize the unique characteristics of the district that he had to work
with to get reelected. And and so maybe they could cut him some slack on
some issues. Is that, you know, I I don't think you can ask him, but I
really don't I don't recall sort of pressure from leadership being
something that was a heavy factor in his his vote calculus. Uh He was
always very uh focused on on the district and uh and what he thought was
best and and as a result his voting record, as you look at it is very very
moderate. It does. He was for example, just recently this year, he was the
only democrat who voted for the health care bill, which was something that
democrats were very much for. But then he was also endorsed by the U. S.
Chamber of Commerce over his opponent in this last election. And that's a
typically very republican uh sought after endorsement. The one thing he
did get is a subcommittee chair chairs job, which is quite unusual for a
freshman. It was unusual for freshman. So the veterans subcommittee on
veterans affair oversight. I think it was an oversight and investigations.
And that was something that what was great also about kind of unique
about harry Mitchell first coming into Congress was that he was a freshman
in Congress, but he was the oldest freshman uh in his freshman class. But
he was by no means a freshman in politics. This was somebody who had, had
, had a lifetime of public service and he really sort of, uh, knew how to
hit the ground running. And uh, so he was sort of fit right into that
chairman role, pretty pretty easily sort of veterans affairs though. Is
that a particularly important district area of policy and District five?
Is that it absolutely is. There's a lot of veterans in and around the
district and it was something that the congressman felt very, very
passionately. I see the personal passion there And at the time, uh, it was
uh, one of the other huge issues that year in 2006 was the Iraq War was a
big political issue, but
how veterans were being treated at the time was, it was, uh, really, uh,
troubling. Um, and, and even even now, I mean, there's still a lot of
issues that the veterans face and that's something that he, he he knew
when he, he got here, he really wanted to try to make a difference. And
frankly, a lot of freshmen may not even uh, seek out involvement in
veterans issues because a lot of times it's not necessarily the most
politically uh
beneficial a subject to work on. And it also, a lot of folks who are again
, trying to climb the ladder and work, uh, work their way up to higher
office, they want something that will give them a higher profile or will
be in the news more. But congressman Mitchell is always, uh, he always
even talks about, he's still used to teach government, but he's still a
student in government and he's much more interested in the mechanics and,
and trying to get in there and sort of solve problems and, and work with
the nuts and bolts. So that was that was sort of a signature issue. I
think that particularly in the first a term that was that merged quickly
as a signature issue fiscal conservatism. I think he voted against the
budget of the democrats that year. And ah, seems to me that these are the
kind of things that would go over? Well, in the district, your immigration
was a tough, what was the toughest kind of issue to get your hands on in
terms of coming up with something that would be satisfactory far as your
constituents are concerned and your conscience and all the other things?
Well, that was actually, the congressman has a really strong conscience.
So, I think that was sometimes things were, it can be difficult when
things are packaged and bundled in a way where there are things that you
like in a package and things that you don't like in a package. And the
question is, is it, is it worth getting progress on some element of a
package? But at the same time, this other thing that you don't like as
much is also part of the package. So, um, those are always difficult votes
and he, in a way, those things sort of very carefully, healthcare would be
a particularly difficult one. Sure, because it's and I know during the
last campaign that he was
sure that he did the right thing and that he then, but I'm not so sure
that that helped him particularly. That was that became an issue. Sure.
Certainly it was it was a big, a big political issue. Uh, but uh, he he
really wrestled with it, He studied it, he uh, talked to, uh, so many
people across the district and and uh, throughout the phoenix metropolitan
area, around Arizona, a lot of folks here in Washington. Um, he, I got it
, I'm struggling to come up with a number of constituency actually talked
to, it was like a, you know, really, really large number. He held some
telephone town halls were, enables literally thousands and thousands of
constituents to be able to get on. This was a very hot issue, though. Very
, very much so. And the stimulus to expect it is, at the time, it was
actually probably slightly less controversial when it was first getting
past because it was right when, uh, soon after President Obama had assumed
office and at the time, his popularity was really high and and the economy
was hemorrhaging jobs. And there was a huge outcry to please Congress do
something. Um and uh in fact one of the, I remember there was a press
release that we put out from the office, uh, that just publishing all,
some of the voices from the community that we had heard from, that had
reached out to the congressman, businesses, other interest groups that had
just said, we're in a crisis here, congressman, this is what we recommend
, This is what we want you to do, not all of it in agreement, but just, it
was, it was the urgency was really a big factor. Then I became sort of an
issue of overspending or wasteful spending as the, it's actually the
campaign came around. Sure. And when, with any big issue in any campaign,
of course, it comes down to messaging. I mean, there's there are the facts
of ultimately what is what's in the bill, what it does, what it does well
, what it doesn't do well, and then there's always what each party will
say, uh, Bill does or doesn't do. Um, and actually, one of one of the
things that we've found most, uh, which you probably talked to any
democrat, you'd find like with the health care bill in particular, the,
the misinformation and misunderstanding of sort of what the bill actually
did, or didn't do, was pretty widespread. And, uh, and that was, I think a
huge, huge challenge to democrats this year and trying to help the public
understand what rumors were false, what the bill actually did and didn't
do. And you can have a genuine debate over whether you support what the
bill does or doesn't do. But for people to be arguing over death panels,
isn't exactly a a debate that Is focused on what the bill actually does.
Immigration was was an issue when you were now Arizona in 1905 and six.
And it's still, it became an issue of course, after 1070, how did that
impact? You get a lot of pressure one way or another, and from other
people after 10 17 we did, and I think that's sort of uh
that that was an issue that uh, the congressman had always worked very
carefully on on immigration and border security issues because he ran on a
platform of of trying to push immigration reform when he first ran and In
2006, So he had always pushed for uh, solutions. And I think his his uh
frustration with all the focus on 1070 was it's not really moving the ball
forward to solve a solution that that neither the bill nor the lawsuit to
stop it was doing anything to fix the broken immigration system or secure
the border. So he'd always try and try to be really focused on that. And I
think he was frustrated that now there was this huge distraction and
political fight over something over here that was sort of taking our eye
off the ball over here. So, um he, one of the first things he did actually
, when he came into congress was he asked for a the government
accountability office, the G. A. O. To come in and examine immigration
enforcement for example, and find out sort of getting beyond the rhetoric
and beyond the partisan platitudes.
How is the system functioning? Why why is it broken? What would somebody
from a purely objective standpoint say, or some steps that need to be
taken? And they did a 2.5 year study and ultimately, when they came back
and the results came back this year, they found that, for example, one of
the big issues we have in phoenix is the drop house issue with immigrants
getting smuggled across the border and then held for ransom. And there
were some headlines declaring phoenix a kidnapping capital. And uh, what
the J. O. Found was uh, as much as we're trying to stamp out these drop
houses and nobody likes these, it doesn't matter where you are an
immigration reform, nobody likes people being held for ransom and held
hostage and and people breaking the law and and mexican cartels and crime
and violence being brought into our communities. Um, there's actually
broad bipartisan concern over over that issue, but there was a loophole in
federal law that was uh, constraining the ability to actually use a civil
forfeiture to actually sees the homes so the authorities could seize all
the other things that were used to perpetrate the crime. But when they
were trying to actually shut down the drop house, they couldn't actually
go after the drop house. It just seemed like a very reasonable, sensible
solution that not a lot of people were paying attention to. I don't think
anyone was really paying attention to because they're all fighting over
what was being chatted about on cable tv and uh, and that was sort of, I
think very telling of the kind of work that the congressman did because he
was much more interested in trying to actually forge a solution that a
broad bipartisan a group could support, as opposed to sort of running to
try to make headlines. This come out legislation he did. So he ultimately
introduced a bill called the stop the Drop Houses Act, which ended up
getting support from both the right and the left, which was very
heartening. Um, but uh, ultimately by the time the report came out in the
bill was filed, it was already uh, like in about july of this year and
then august recess hit. And it was campaign season. And uh, Congress is
never really good about getting things done during campaign season. But
but that was something he had worked on for a long time, but also, uh, he
actually very much supported uh, when uh President Bush had sent National
Guard troops to the border to try to help Get a handle on some of the
crime that was going on around there. And and had urged them not to take
the National Guard troops away unless until they could build up the border
patrol to a point that it would actually where they were taking out 6000
troops and putting in 3000 New Border Patrol. The math just kind of didn't
add up. So he was just, again, he didn't care if he was working with a
republican or a democrat. It just was like sort of Made sense that they
put 6000 in things were they were effective? Why would you take 3000 out?
Um, so I noticed on 1070, he was very critical of Obama's administration's
decision to sue the state. And with that bill, he was again, because he
very much felt that it just neither the bill or a lawsuit against it was
going to solve the problem or even move the ball forward that it was just
a fight about something that isn't going to secure the border and isn't
going to fix the broken sort of a symbolic thing. But she, there was some
concern that encouraging, well that it was, we had a one congressman who
had some trouble because of that bill routine a boycott as I think so yes.
Which, which congress Mitchell was never for, he, that was one of the
things that's been most challenging to in this most recent turn as the
economy has gone down. Obviously Scottsdale is a big part of the district
and the lack of tourism and meetings and convention business is just uh,
had a horrible, horrible toll. And that was something that, uh, the
congressman had worked very closely with folks in the industry, um, and
the Scottsdale Convention and Visitors Bureau, and, and, and they had
always suggested, they said, not only should, should would we hope that
politicians would not endorse a boycott? We would just hope they wouldn't
even be talking about it? Because every time they're even saying I'm
against a boycott, it just kept perpetuating attention on the fact that
there is discussion about a boycott and they felt that was damaging. So,
they had always very much encouraged congressman Mitchell and I assume
others to say, Please, just, just stop, stop using the word boycott. Just
, just, let's let's focus on what we have to offer and, and selling what
the great, so basically saying, I think 10 said he was going to amount to
too much. So why make a big with the boycott and with a uh, suit from the
federal government? Just, just back off from that ah, Back in 2000, I
guess you were here in 2008? Yeah. When you re elected and then, uh, ran
against the same guy in 2010 and everything had turned around as he played
politics moves very quickly. Sure, was there. What were the, what were the
crush, what was the crucial movement there? Uh, I think, uh, I think what
was really telling is, uh, for example, the election in 2006 was uh, there
was some some national issues for sure. It was a very, uh, it was a big
watershed election, year wave election, so to speak. But the election in
the congressional district was very focused on Congressman Hayworth, and
it really was about him and his conduct in office to a large extent. Um,
and uh, I think uh, this last election, like in 2010, um, it was
interesting that congress Mitchell lost, but uh, you didn't hear too much
about the congressman personally. Uh, it seemed to be a lot of the
national narratives that folks just were not, uh, not pleased with what
they had seen in Washington and I wanted to make a change. But most of
commercials and other things you saw were uh, sort of against Obama and
Pelosi. Uh, and so
it didn't seem like it was as focused specifically on harry Mitchell. And
I think part of the reason to was also uh, I mean, he had sort of kept
faith and had a very with the District and had a very moderate voting
record. I mean, he voted for health care for sure, um, which was a big
Democratic bill, but when you look at he was listed in The National
Journal's having one of the most independent voting records in Congress,
because he really didn't matter what the vote was whether it was a heavy
duty, big vote on a big bill or if it was even a procedural motion on the
floor, if he thought it was, uh, that either side was trying to get away
with something or not using fair play, he was going to stand up and make
sure that republicans were treated well when democrats were in the
majority, because he would expect that the democrats should hopefully be
treated well when republicans were in the majority. And so what do you
look looking back? Of course, you might might change your mind later
around. But looking back now, what do you think your team, the team of
which you were apart? What did it accomplish? What were its frustrations?
What what would you do differently? Oh, goodness, I'm pretty proud of
actually what, uh, what the team accomplished and I, I wanna say this has
been a tremendous experience. I really wouldn't change any of it for, for
anything. But I think what what has been great is we've all been sort of
blessed to work uh, under a congressman who again, was not your typical
congressman. I mean, this was somebody who came to Congress a little later
in life than the typical freshman. It was somebody who really had a
passion for public service and for helping the community and it really was
just in it to try to do the right thing? Uh, not sort of the political,
how do I get to the next office kind of thing. Um, And it was just an
honor to be able to, to work for him. And we all just, you know, he taught
government, he kept teaching all of us government along the way. Uh, and
so I know we all learned a ton from him, so we're all obviously pretty
grateful. Okay, fine. I think that should, that should do it. It's a nice
high note.
Okay.