6/30/2005 07:36:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Nation had a reporter at the College Republican National Committee meeting last week. Which gives me a chance to put this fine picture of the aptly named Paul Gourley back up. I wondered if I was taking potshots at some young guy that didn't deserve to be picked on. Boy, was I ever wrong. I remembered hearing about this incident last year, didn't know the names though. Here is what Max Blumenthal reports about him:
Not to be outdone by his opponent's petty pranks, CRNC front-runner and University of South Dakota senior Paul Gourley was at the center of a controversial fundraising scheme. During the height of last year's campaign, a firm hired by the CRNC sent repeated solicitation letters printed on "Republican Headquarters 2004" letterhead to elderly Republicans, some of whom suffered from dementia. The letter urged recipients to pray over an American flag lapel pin, then send it back--along with $1,000--so George W. Bush could wear it during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The solicitation was signed by "Paul Gourley, National Director."
Total bastard. A few years back, we had a similar problem with one of the myriad vice-presidents in the YDA. Guess what? She was quietly asked to leave the group. We didn't promote her to president. In the article, Blumenthal asks various gung-ho CRs why they don't sign up for the Army. After all, the President called it the most noble calling just a couple of days ago. Their answers are so, well...uh...creative, that I can't do them justice by picking out a quote here or there. In the interest of equal time, Christopher Hitchens has an article in Slate where he argues that this whole notion that decision makers may have different ideas of sacrifice if their own are the ones being sacrificed is silly. I guess he doesn't understand why the wealthy and powerful should pay the same price as the rest of us. Does he still consider himself a lefty? The overt racism and hate from some of the speakers at the CRNC leads me to something that I have always wondered with folks envolved with the CRs, YRs, YAFs and all other sorts of groups. I remember when I was at the U of A, and encountering some of these guys. Many of them did not know I was half-Mexican, they'd say the spew some of the most bizarre racism that I've ever heard. Heck, one of them that I knew proudly showed me his graddad's KKK necktie. I always think, well, they can grow out of it. Obviously, this sort of thing is not frowned upon by the speakers at these meetings. So, how can they grow out of it if no one ever says that it's wrong? The kid I knew with the tie, last I heard he works for a congressman. Nothing indicates to me that he has ever changed his mind. Heck, why would he? The one thing that offended me was the title "Generation Chickenhawk." Are they indicting an entire generation of people because of a few pampered elitists at a meeting in Virginia? It's an insult to the thousands of young people who have signed up. I also wanted to follow up on one of my first posts. One of the things that's nice on the Cochise County Board of Supervisors is that there are only three members. This means that you can go from being a lone voice in the wilderness to majority in one fell swoop. Well, not quite that simple. You may recall that Supervisor Paul Newman had some serious questions about an incinerator that is being built near Whetstone. He has kept on asking questions, and now it looks like his fellow supervisor, Richard Searle, has changed his mind. Now, there is only one vote, Pat Call, for the project. This will probably keep going for a while, but it looks like the good guys are winning. One more item: I was totally disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case. For those of you who don't follow these things, the City of New London was trying to use eminent domain to force residents of a working class neighborhood out so a private firm could develop the area. We may not like that neighborhoods get bulldozed, but we swallow it when it is for a public use. New Haven argued that the public benefitted because there would be increased tax revenue. Well, that can be argued about just about every neighborhood. For some reason, the Supremes agreed. Well, a libertarian group called Free Star Media has there own ideas. Yeah, they are whacked out libertarians, and they love Ayn Rand way too much. But, this is brilliant. Check it out.|W|P|112018998650662974|W|P|A Couple of Updates|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/01/2005 01:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This was a great column Ted!9/12/2005 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger abigail|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/28/2005 10:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm sure that all of you in my adoring public are waiting for my comments on the President's speech tonight. Well, I'd be happy to comment, if he had anything new to say. Given this, I found something far more interesting and important to talk about. I read in the American Prospect this morning about a new group that has formed called the Christian Alliance for Progress. They are a Florida based organization that seeks to be a voice for left-leaning Christians. This is great news for those of us who take all of that squishy "love thy neighbor" stuff and the Beatitudes seriously. They have issued something called the "Jacksonville Declaration," I urge all of you to check it out and if you agree, sign on. (NB - The Populist movement of the 1890s started with something called the "Ocala Declaration," maybe Florida ain't so bad.) They are not shy about their main aim: confronting the religious right on ground that they think belongs to them. This is a far cry from groups like the National Council of Churches, that while well intentioned, are so non-confrontational as to be politically flacid. This organization leaves me with the hope that someone is willing to be righteously angry and put up a fight against these nitwits. The Alliance has six main issues:
  • Caring For "The Least Of These" - Pursuing Economic Justice
  • Caring for the Earth - Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today
  • Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity - Equality for Gays and Lesbians
  • Honoring the Sanctity Of Childbearing Decisions; Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion
  • Forsaking Brute Power - Seeking Peace, Not War
  • Extending Healing to All - Health Care for All Americans
I'm glad they have included environmentalism as one of their issues. I always wondered why there hasn't been more talk about environmental stewardship, although James Dobson made some noises about it a couple of months ago. That suprised me. But what was Noah doing but trying to help endangered species, right? The nice thing about this is that this group isn't shy about using religious rhetoric. One of the things that we on the left forget is how important religion has been in many social justice movements in this country. The obvious one is the civil rights movement, but the suffrage movement and the progressive movement drew from the "social gospel" preached by progressive preachers at the turn of the century, the sanctuary movement here in Southern Arizona was housed at churches, and the UFW always marched under the banner of the Blessed Virgin. It would have been ridiculous for anyone to tell folks in these movements to tell them to tone down the religion. One of my continuing frustrations about the Democratic party is our fear of religion. Funny thing, our voters are faithful, and most of our candidates are religious too. But, it seems we have a lot of activists and political professionals who have some sort of fear of religion. In 1992, one activist I knew told me she was deeply offended by Bill Clinton quoting the Bible in a speech, and that she wasn't going to vote for him. I thought this was totally ridiculous. The right loves to say that we hate religious people. But, when we start having convulsions because someone mentions God, we are proving their point. Some amazing things have happened in this country when religious progressives want something done. Maybe that will happen again.|W|P|112002475935705607|W|P|It's About Freakin' Time|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/28/2005 11:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think it is because Democrats are way more respectful of the seperation of church and state.6/29/2005 12:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim the godless heathen|W|P|Personally I think it is always a bad idea to start separating people into "religious" and "secular" categories. It's just another wedge as far as I'm concerned. "Secular" people are frequently the most rabidly dogmatic. Take your activist friend (please!) who wouldn't vote for Clinton because he quoted from the Bible - you should have asked her what she thought about Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez.

Our modern secular religions - science, nationalism, capitalism, Hollywood - all have their founding myths, their icons, their priests, their saints, their devils, their sacred cows, and their pig-headed zealots. America in particular, I think (maybe it's just being so close to it), has a Jesuitical streak that runs through just about everything, no matter what side of what issue you look at.

I do think that grassroots activists have every reason to distrust big religious institutions of every stripe, but I also think that people who can't find inspiration in the Bible - one of the world's great literary works - are either ignorant (haven't read it) or extremely unimaginative.

The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) remains, to me, the most intriguing, ironic, inspiring passage. Here we have Jesus telling a man how to achieve salvation, and the crux of it is, the Samaritan - a heathen - acts not out of religious obligation, but simple human compassion. There is nothing faith-based about that. That's my Jesus: after 2000 years still misunderstood by Christian and Atheist alike.7/01/2005 01:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|America has always been a land of Religion and extremists. My favorite professor in college was a guy named Dr. Chris L. Smith who told one of the classes I had with him that the every so often America goes through these revivals where have a lot of fire and brimstone and then afterward people look at each sheepishly and say "uh did we do that?"6/27/2005 03:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Today, that instead of writing about actual issues, I would instead try to write about something trivial, just like the real political writers do. I mean, it's not like anything important is going on. Instead of writing about politics, I'll just take this opporitunity to make fun of people. A couple of left-leaning websites managed to get pictures of some young conservative events. Campus Progress got some photos of the College Republican National Committee meeting in Virginia. This one is my favorite. Don't ask, don't tell... Actually, I shouldn't say that. "Don't ask, don't tell" only applies to people who actually sign up for the military, not for the folks who think patriotism is putting a "Let's Roll" bumper sticker on the Japanese-made SUV that mom bought them. A group called Fix Our Future, which seems to be a Washington based anti-Social Secutiry organization, organized a "rally." Hard to tell whether or not they are against Social Security or for Bush's plan, they probably don't know either. A fellow (or fellee?) named Progrev has posted some photos. My favorite is the guy below. I think I understand the argument now: without FICA taking that big chunk of his pay, he wouldn't be so underfed. Maybe these guys have been breathing too much of the Republican air in the District of Columbia, but I thought that Bush's plan was kaput. The only people that don't know are Bush worshippers. Putting on events like this, well, I believe the scientific term is post-mortem equine flagelation. One actual story struck me today. Apparently, Rep. Tom Davis has threatened to strip Major League Baseball of its anti-trust exemption if George Soros buys a piece of the Washington Nationals. What the heck? Have things become so partisan that you can't even own a baseball team if you have the wrong politics? The stated objection is that we can't have a partisan figure owning a baseball team. Um, who is that guy that used to own the Texas Rangers?|W|P|111991627134740150|W|P|But, They Make It So Easy|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2005 08:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous TOAD|W|P|Paul Gourley? Do you pronounce that like 'girly'?6/28/2005 08:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Cheap comment about the guy in the yellow t-shirt. What's that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black? I seem to remember a certain Czech jersey......6/28/2005 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yeah...and I have about 14 years on that guy.6/26/2005 04:51:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was disappointed by this morning's Political Insider column in the Arizona Republic. Yeah, most of the time, it is written too smugly (it is, after all, a "tounge-in-cheek look at Arizona politics"). This morning, the column consisted of one item, a short one too, about Rep. David Burnell Smith's campaign finance woes. This is old news, really. The only question right now is how far along does this get before a judge orders the capitol police to clear Smith's office. Still left unexplored by our state's flagship paper is the connection that Smith has with political consultant Constantine Querard. Querard also did work for serveral other legislators, many of whom have also had their campaign finances scrutinized. That would be too much to ask. Well, I know that I shouldn't expect incisive investigative journalism from what is, in essence, a gossip column. But, we live in a state of four million people and this week this is the only item that was worth mentioning? Egads. Here's an item that they could have mentioned: Rep. Jack Jackson Jr. is making noises about running against US Rep. Rick Renzi. Jackson represented a large swath of northern Arizona but didn't choose to run for re-election last year. His candidacy would gain national attention since Renzi is in one of the few "swing" districts in the country, and also because Jackson is openly gay and Navajo. Jackson would be the first Native American to represent Arizona should he win, but the second openly gay congressman, although Rep. Jim Kolbe didn't come out until he had served several terms. I think that Jackson would be the only Native American in congress since Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell left office. It is hard to know if the "gay thing" would be a problem for him. Also, in some of the areas of the district there is tension going on between anglos and native americans over water issues. If Jackson thought that either one of these things was going to sink his candidacy, he'd choose not to run at all. I don't know him that well, although my brother seemed to enjoy working with him in the legislature. He doesn't strike me as a guy that would just do this on a lark. If he's going to do it, it's only after he's figured out a way to win. (NB - Thanks to Jane at Arizona Congress Watch for the heads up on this. I also found an article in the Navajo Times about a possible run by Jackson.) The candidates are now lined up for this year's city council election. The candidates turned in their nominating petitions this week. Some of us who follow this way too closely like to look at the number of signatures and try to read something into them. The number of signatures turned in can tell you whether or not a candidate has a decent organization. It can get a bit more complex than that, for example, a candidate can pay signature gatherers and not have any grass roots support. So, take what you will from these numbers. In Ward 3, a Democrat needs 271 signatures, and Karin Uhlich turned in the maximum, 541. Republican incumbent Kathleen Dunbar needed a minimum of 145, and turned in 245, 1 and 2/3 times what she needed. In Ward 5, long time Democratic Councilmember Steve Leal turned in his maximum 422, he only needed to turn in 211. His opponent Vernon Walker only needed turn in 58 (!), he turned in 102, just shy of twice what he needed. Expect there to be a challenge, given the low number of signatures involved. Both Democratic challengers in Ward 6, Nina Trasoff and Steve Farley, turned in the maximum of 872 signatures, twice the minimum. Councilmember and Oprah Guest Fred Ronstadt had to turn in at least 234, but turned in 350. In each case, the Democratic candidates collected far more than the maximum, they just didn't turn them in (signatures over the maximum can't be considered for filing). This gives them a chance to go through their petitions and make absolutely sure they are only turning in good signatures. Not so with the Republican candidates. Expect their petitions to be looked over and at least one attempt to get a candidate bounced from the ballot. Wouldn't it be awful if Dunbar or Ronstadt couldn't run for re-election? One can always hope.|W|P|111983326971290562|W|P|What, Chip & Robbie, Nothing Happened This Week?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/26/2005 11:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|How come CD-1 is still considered a swing district?6/27/2005 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well, George Cordova almost pulled it off despite the problems with his campaign. The thing that they need to do is find someone the "pinto" democrats would vote for.6/27/2005 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|Hey Elizabeth,

Did you get one thin dime from the AZ Democrats/ DCCC in 2004, or did they throw it *all* into CD1? I hope they don't repeat that in 2006. Renzi is going to be extremely well-funded and hard to outfundraise.

Here's hoping they spread around the dough a little more, as Dean says he'll do. There are a lot of deserving candidates, not just one.6/28/2005 11:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, I did not get any money out of the Democratic Party: locally, state, or federal. No assitance with fundraising and I got the final brushoff from Waide (not that he could do much anyway) a few weeks ago. That is why I asked why CD-1 is considered a swing district when despite ALL the money that Paul had (I looked at the FEC reports and he had a million less then Renzi but still over a million) he did not break 100K votes. I had only $4,000 and we broke 100K votes. CD-5, in my opinion, should be considered the biggest swing district in the state. And the second would be Randy's because I think if he tries one more time and got signifgant resouces...He could win. Oh well.6/29/2005 05:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Randy?

Gawd...I hope you aren't already refering to CD-8 (my district!) as Randy Graf's.7/01/2005 01:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No way in heck! I was refering to Randy Camacho! CD 26/24/2005 06:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When people would complain about the mid-decade redistricting that occured in Texas before the last year, I would point out that because of our Independent Redisticiting Commission, it could not happen in Arizona. Well, yes and no. What Rep. Tom DeLay did in Texas would be constitutionally impossible here. Instead we have the IRC draw the lines. The whole idea is that an independent panel would be, well, free of biases. Of course they aren't. The chairman must be a registered independent. Chairman Steve Lynn, while being someone that sends money to the occassional Democrat, has been a close ally of people like Rep. Jim Kolbe who have a personal stake in the outcome of the process. I can go on about this, but it isn't even the problem anymore. The problem goes back to what the panel was charged with doing. The purpose in the ballot ammendment that passed was to create "fair districts," that is, more districts where there is actual electoral competition. Unfortunately, the people on the redistricting panel didn't seem to see it this way. When their work was complete in late 2001, the number of competitive districts increased from four or five to...four or five. Yes, that's four or five out of thirty. I attended their final meeting in Tucson, and they became seriously irritated when people would bring up the fact that they had done nothing to create fair districts. Without the idea of fair districts, we may as well go back to having the maps drawn by legislative staff. I don't need to go into a full run down of the lawsuits, it is too confusing. But, the commission was ordered to get back together and come up with another map, called the "April 12th Map." The map makes district 26 into a slightly less Republican district, taking some Democrats out of 27 and 28. The district would remain Republican, but it means that the Democrats could pull off a win should the Republicans nominate an out of touch extremist. The impact in the Phoenix area is much more dramatic. The most entertaining impact is that Rep. Jim Weiers would be drawn into a neighboring Democratic district. Several districts could also become competitive as well, raising the state total to between seven and nine. These changes may not bring the Democrats control of either chamber, but it could mean its more possible to build alliances with reasonable Republicans. The trouble is, the map may not actually be implemented. There was a question about whether or not the commission could even meet, then a question about whether the legislature would fund the group further, then a question of whether they need to wait for the action of a judge to make the map official. No one is sure if all of this hemming and hawing will be done by the time of the next elections. Earlier this week, I heard Rep. Phil Lopes tell the Democrats of Greater Tucson that he didn't think the maps would be ready in time. With a relatively narrow registration advantage, the Republicans have been able to control the legislature for most of the last thirty years. The last redistricting created a new set of problems by making the districts so lopsided that even the most far-right Republicans could cruise to election with little real competition. So, we are now controlled by a narrow-minded cabal of extremists that only need to keep a couple of thousand primary voters happy. It would have been helpful for the redistricting commission to remember this when they started their work. When will these people start listening to me... Desert Rat Democrat has added me to his links. You should check him out. His entries tend not to be as comprehensive (okay, long winded...) as mine, but are more action oriented. For example, he is calling on his readers to get Karl Rove fired. A bit quixotic, but its such things that make us more fun than the other side. Desert Rat talks a bit too much about the Sun Devils (shame about that college world series...), but I think I can put up with him. I've also been added to Catholic Girl's Bad Catholic site. My plan for world domination has neared it's denouement.|W|P|111962029314467564|W|P|Another Redistricting, Maybe, Possibly...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/25/2005 12:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|It would be interesting to see Weiers get bumped into a blue district, which is all the more reason that I think he'll run for governor. The good ole boys who run the state GOP aren't going to sit back and let a pro-choice moderate Republican like John Greene go up against Janet. Weiers would be their man.6/25/2005 08:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You could always turn them into zombies. They would not get any work done but they seem to be not getting any done anyway.


I happen to be watching Shaun of the Dead and maybe that is why I thought of the admittedly impractical idea.6/27/2005 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim the raving euro-pansy nutcase|W|P|I am going to jump in late here (I just returned from my nephew's wedding in the cyber-free zone of Lake Tahoe) with a radical proposal: the political make-up of the legislature should reflect the political make-up of the voting public. In other words, representation should be representative, or if you like, proportional. Yes! That's right, you heard right! I'm proposing Proportional Representation! DROP THE LATTE AND PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR, COMMIE!! I realize this isolates me politically (it's just me and every industrialized democracy except the US and GB), but criminy - when are we going to get fed up with politicians (and "independent" commisions) picking our reps for us and get serious about democracy?6/27/2005 03:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Actually, I'd be for one house being chosen this way, and we can leave the other house still being chosen geographically. I think Japan does something similar.6/27/2005 04:29:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Catholic's Girl's Bad Catholic site? HAHAHAHA! Oh Ted, I think you might be one of the 4 horsemen!6/23/2005 08:10:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Republicans have finally found themselves a candidate to run against Governor Janet Napolitano next year. No, I don't mean Teresa Ottesen or Keith DeGreen; I mean a serious candidate. Former State Senate President John Greene made a quick announcement today. I found it very suprising; I hadn't seen his name floated before. Turns out that he made a point of not letting his name hang out there or taking the time to set up any sort of organization. He just decided to announce. Sort of refreshing...well...not really. Greene was President of the Senate durring the bad old days of the Symington administration. He used his office on behalf of Symington to go after enemies, most particularly State School Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, a frequent critic of the administration. He was later named director of the State Department of Insurance. He made a run for Attorney General in 2002. The race turned ugly in the last month, with Andrew Peyton Thomas calling Greene and the other candidate, Foster Robberson, "liberals." Well, he didn't actually stop there. His attacks on Greene and Robberson went so far that they prompted Republican National Committeeman Mike Hellon to say that he wouldn't vote for Thomas if he won the primary. One would think that this would have helped Greene, but he got hit with allegations regarding his campaign finances just before the primary. He got soundly thumped. Despite his taking point in the Symington platoon, he is moderate on social issues. He angered conservatives by not allowing hearings on many abortion bills during his Senate presidency. There was a feeling that discussion of abortion would cause problems in the Republican caucus, but also, Greene is genuinely pro-choice. I have also read that he is moderate on gay rights, but given where the Arizona Republican Party is these days, its hard to know how far right "moderate" actually is. His positions on social issues may prompt other Republicans who have been thinking about it to make it official. Current State Senate President Ken Bennett, State House Speaker Jim Weiers and Representative Eddie Farnsworth are all social conservatives who have been making noises about joining the race. Evidently, the name of Surgeon General Richard Carmona has fallen off of Republican lips. They have found out that he has been registered as an independent since 1996. Well, duh, I already knew that. It's so hard for people from Phoenix to actually come to Tucson to check such things. Or heck, too hard to pick up the phone. Carmona's recent interview with the New York Times where he revealed that he had smoked marijuana and supports stem cell research probably didn't help either. By the way, both of these, another duh, I already knew that. These guys oughta really consult me. I'd really worry about a Republican consulting me, though.|W|P|111958419544369271|W|P|Lookie Ma...A Real Candidate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/23/2005 09:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Have I told you that I knew Teresa Ottesen in high school? And she forced her way onto the football AND wrestling teams?6/23/2005 09:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Does that make her a feminist of the ass-kicking variety? Don't give me any reasons to like her.6/24/2005 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Not really. Just something about her that I could print in public. I am trying to flip her to being a Dem.6/21/2005 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Cardinal Jaime SinCardinal Jaime Sin of Manilla died monday. Sin led the overthrow of not one, but two corrupt and oppressive governments. Sin was one of the leaders of the church in the 1980s, along with Cardinal Józef Glemp and Archbishop Oscar Romero, who defied orders to stay out of politics and use the weight of his office on behalf of the people. The gospel says this:
“But those, who for love of me, uproot themselves and accompany the people and go with the poor in their suffering and become incarnated and feel as their own the pain, the abuse – they will secure their lives, because my Father will reward them.”
The easy thing to do, especially when you have a high office, is to make and keep friendships with the powerful. The hard thing to do is to work for the people that feel beat down. This gets back to the thesis I often get back to: that too many people use their religion as a way to confirm prejudices that they already have and justify whatever way they are living. I thought of this as they announced the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen yesterday. Killen was acquitted years ago because, in the words of one juror, he was a preacher. A preacher who apparently saw his role as helping the powerful opress people. Schwerner, Chaney, GoodmanI'm willing to cut the jury a break for their reluctance to convict for manslaughter. I've been on a jury for a murder case. It's hard for people who haven't been on a jury to understand the trememendous weight you feel in that room. I can see them being reluctant to convict an 80 year-old man of murder, so they bumped it down to a lesser included offense. When Killen's attorney heard that the jury was split 6-6, I think he thought that it was six to acquit. The South has changed an awful lot. Unfortunately, not enough. I guess that there are still enough people that don't get it that it is actually politically risky to acknowledge what used to happen. For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu (who, in my perfect political world, would be a presidential candidate...) introduced a resolution last week to acknowledge that the senate was wrong to block anti-lynching legislation. Landrieu managed to get herself and 88 co-sponsors for this bill. Notable are the absences from the list. Sen. Jon Kyl of our state, couldn't see fit to sign on (Sen. John McCain did). Neither Senator from Mississippi, the state where Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman were murdered, signed on. So, those appologies to the black community a while back were hollow after all, eh Sen. Lott? What amazes me about this is that this is merely a resolution, a piece of paper, just words. There is absolutely no policy impact of this. This should have been an easy thing to do. But, I guess Lott, Kyl and company are worried that the guys in the white sheets will stay home on election day if they acknowledge that sitting by while citizens were murdered for the color of their skin was a bad thing. (NB - In doing some research for this post (yeah, I actually do some...) I found two blogs, Catholicism, Holiness and Spirituality, and Bad Catholic. I haven't decided whether to add these to the blog roll, but check them out.)|W|P|111941818408923867|W|P|Cardinal Sin|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/20/2005 09:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Sam CoppersmithFormer Congressman Sam Coppersmith has added Rum, Romanism and Rebellion to his links. It actually is an honor, and that's not just me trying to puff him up. Rep. Raúl GrijalvaI worked on Rep. Coppersmith's senate race back in 1994. Unfortunately, he got spanked by Jon Kyl, who will get spanked next year by Jim Pedersen (shh...he's not running yet...). Coppersmith was a remarkable candidate. I never saw the man talk down to any audience. On the other hand, Kyl ran a singularly shallow race. You could have looked at all of Kyl's ads and you would have never known that the man spent even one day as a congressman. No, I'm not still bitter. Rep. Marcus Aurelius SmithThe best line during that campaign came from Dan Brito, who volunteered for the campaign (I think I recruited him) and now works for Congressman Grijalva: "That Kyl, he is such a tool." We did carry Pima County though. Sam would have been a rarity in the US Senate, a man with a mustache. Only one Arizona Senator has had a mustache: Republican Ralph Cameron, who served one ignominous term in the 1920's. Sam and California Rep. Ed Zschau are the only two recent major party candiates with them. But, he was part of a great tradition of mustached Arizona congressmen. (Our three since statehood are pictured here. All of the congressional delegates elected before statehood had mustaches.) Yes, a very non-substantive post. I'm entitled. I'll get back to complaining about Jim Weiers and Fred Ronstadt later.|W|P|111932892860788266|W|P|Just a Short Note|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/21/2005 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually, Ralph Cameron was NOT the only Arizona Senator with a moustache. Cameron's chief political nemesis, Democrat Marcus A. "Mark" Smith was also famous for his facial hair. Smith served as U.S. Senator from Arizona from 1912 to 1920 when he was defeated by Cameron (it was Cameron's fifth match-up against Smith, and the second one he had won). Smith was a very important political figure in Arizona, having served in one elected office or another for most of the period between 1884 and 1920, and being the spiritual leader of the more conservative "Cleveland Faction" of Arizona's Democrats. You should know that.

You did get it right that Cameron was a bozo, however. On his last day in the Senate, his fellow Senators dissed him by roundly applauding his departure. He was replaced by Democrat Carl Hayden and would the last Republican to Represent Arizona in the Senate until Barry Goldwater was elected in 1952.6/21/2005 11:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Point taken...I put Mark Smith down as a mustached house member, but failed to note his service in the Senate.

Big bozo...6/21/2005 11:44:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Did you just call you brother a big bozo?6/21/2005 03:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Did I do that? Hmm...6/22/2005 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous other|W|P|I think he was talking about Cameron again.6/23/2005 10:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|Sam Coppersmith is a good guy. I remember him quite well from his run for the Senate and his time in Congress. We'd have been a lot better off if he'd beaten Kyl.

I feel quite fortunate to live in the extreme north end of Raul Grijalva's district (which ends about 4 blocks north of me in Avondale. Congressman Grijalva gives me great hope for the future of the Arizona Democratic Party. A true progressive voice in the House for us.6/27/2005 04:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I cant believe you mentioned Brito!6/19/2005 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Republicans are still having trouble recruiting candidates to run against Governor Janet Napolitano. I keep hearing that they reign supreme in this state, with their five-point registration lead and all. It's become so funny that it's actually a bit sad that a major party can't find anyone to run. The latest person to snatch his hat from the ring is former Congressman Frank Riggs. You don't remember Frank Riggs? He served Arizona residents as a congressman for three terms from...Santa Barbara. That's in California for those trying to figure out if that's in La Paz county. I doubt anyone even knew that he lived here now, let alone was planning to run, until an article in this morning's Arizona Republic said that he decided against it. Well, actually, he couldn't run. We have some strange obscure law that says you actually have to be an Arizonan to try to run for Governor. (NB- The Republicans love carpetbagging, don't they?) Riggs is yet another in a long list of names, including former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley and Congressman J. D. Hayworth, Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, and even actor Rick Schroeder, who is apparently leaving the state. Maybe those desperate midnight calls from Matt Salmon finally got to him. I think that I said before that Surgeon General Richard Carmona would be the next "hopeful" to say no. Heck, how was I supposed to know about Riggs? The names of Carmona and former Second Lady Marilyn Quayle (I don't think anyone says "second lady", but hey...) are still floating in Republican circles. I don't see either one of them trying to do it. Napolitano is inassailable. Napolitano has been offering the people of Arizona a choice: her way or the way of the legislative leadership. The leaders of the legislature are so far out of step with the public, and even with the buisness leaders that fund Republican campaigns, that there is really only one choice. One possible candidate is testing the waters. House Speaker Jim Weiers has been hitting the road telling everyone what a big liar Napolitano is. He is still miffed that the Governor vetoed the tax credit for corporations that gave to private schools. Napolitano says that Weiers lied to her since he promised that there would be a sunset clause, a normal thing for such bills. The sunset clause did not appear, so Napolitano vetoed it. Well, Weiers is still miffed about this "lie." Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was a lie, why did your people tell the Democratic members that the sunset clause was in there as promised? (NB - Mr. Speaker, a good way to build bridges would be to avoid thinly veiled racist comments when legislation needs to be hammered out. Just a piece of unsolicited advice, from me to you.) No need to worry. Although there hasn't been any polling, at least none that is public, since the veto, it doesn't seem to have had any effect on her popularity. The press is presenting the "lie" issue as a he-said-she said. Maybe, but give the people the choice between the hard-right close minded leadership of the legislature, and a governor who has been standing up for them, the people believe the governor. Rep. Steve Huffman may want to put his plans to challenge Sen. Toni Hellon in the Northwest side District 26 on hold. Huffman is terming out and he needs to either go up or out. They are both in the same "suburban Republican" mold and it wasn't shaping up to be ideological. I mean, it may have been ugly (and fun to watch...) but not ideological. Now, a fellow named Al Melvin has entered the race. That's right, his name is Melvin. Melvin is an associate of former Rep. Randy Graf and his web page features a shot of him with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, so that should tell you what wing of the Republican party he is from. The worry up in the country clubs is that Huffman and Hellon split the moderate vote, and that Melvin gets elected. We'll see how it goes... Melvin has already refered to Rep. Johnathan Paton as a "little bastard," one can only imagine how he will be with Rep. Pete Hershberger. Paton's reserve unit is about to be called up, possibly for duty in Iraq. Nice to see a Republican like Melvin be supportive of our troops, I guess that doesn't apply if they are "RINOs." I met Paton several years ago. I can't remember if he was the candidate and Scott Kirtley was his campaign manager, or if it was the other way around. He may have trouble keeping his face off of TV, but I don't consider him a "little bastard." Chris Limberis ran a hatchet job in the latest issue of the Tucson Weekly on local business leader Lea Marquez-Peterson. I have never met the woman; I only know her as someone involved with a number of community activities. I read through the article, all I saw was a list of things that happen when someone owns several businesses. Yeah, she went bankrupt, BFD. I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. Once again, Limberis seems to be attackingsomeone more for who her friends are (Raúl Grijalva, Dan Eckstrom, Ann Day...) than anything substantive they have done. I think that Limberis is a good reporter, his reporting on the Dr. David Stidham murder and the follies in the County Attorney's office have been excellent. The trouble with him is he gets on these personal vendettas that poison his whole outlook. His animus towards Raúl Grijalva may have even poisoned Elaine Richardson's message during the 2002 primary, preventing her from getting any sort of momentum. I realize that all of this about Marquez-Peterson is public record, but why rehash it when this woman hasn't hurt anyone? Heck, she isn't some bozo like Bob McMahon. Hey Chris, whatever happened to that sexual harrasment lawsuit you were going to file against Sharon Bronson? I'm such a little bastard, ain't I?|W|P|111924399249347315|W|P|Run Run Run|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/21/2005 09:56:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Actually, you DO know Lea Marquez. She was involved in SUAB at the same time you were.6/21/2005 11:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I was going to echo this comment, apparently Ted has forgotten his days at UofA altogether, altough I believe there were quite a few of them....6/21/2005 11:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Oops.6/17/2005 06:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Cole Hickman, who was very active in the ASU Young Democrats, is in basic training for the US Army. He has sent letters to Tony Cani, who posts them on his blog, Fear Itself. Expect these to be pretty regular, since basic consists of all that exciting obstacle course stuff you see on the ads, plus long periods of boredom. When my brother was in basic, his DI made all of them take time to write letters. I have no idea where Cole will be going when he is done. Tony has also posted news about former YDAz Veep Vince Enriquez, but news comes from him a little less frequently. But, given that most of it would me "your mom" jokes, maybe it's for the best. Former U.S. Representative Sam Coppersmith has a blog called Liberal Desert, which consists of editorials he writes for the East Valley Tribune. I worked as a volunteer in Coppersmith's 1994 U.S. Senate race against Jon Kyl. Well, we lost, but what Democrat won that year? Coppersmith spent only one term in congress, representing the most conservative district in the state. Matt Salmon was his successor, if that gives you a bit of a clue how conservative. His term in congress was an interesting one. Basically, he was the sort of Democrat that the DLC loved when they were still interesting, before they became yet another whiny pressure group in our party. He was tough on budget issues, but he also looked for programs that were wasteful but environmentally detrimental as well. He managed to get Republican budget hawks (there were some back then, it wasn't so long ago) together with the environmentalists and managed to kill some programs. This week's post is an excellent criticism of the Proposition 200 law. He didn't include this stat in his article, but apparently a grand total of four aliens have been "caught" because of Prop. 200. Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a story about the new class of summer interns at the Heritage Foundation. I found out about this article in the &c blog on The New Republic site. &c seemed to be most struck by the fact that one of these New Model Army types voiced her yearning to be a pharmeceutical lobbyist. It really doesn't suprise me though. Money will always trump ideology for the careerists. The thing that struck me the most was this:
It is an alternative with few rivals. The Brookings Institution, a centrist group more than 50 years older than Heritage, has no paid interns. Neither does the Progressive Policy Institute, which promotes a centrist version of liberalism. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a premier antipoverty group, has 10 paid interns. People for the American Way, a bulwark of Beltway liberalism, has 40 - but no dorm.
As much as it's easy to make fun of the conservative geeks that are pictured in the article, you can at least say that the conservative movement is taking youth seriously. I often hear that we on the left don't have the same cohesive network of think tanks and pressure groups. One of the reasons is that these guys bring in their people early. The young folks are networking before they even have serious careers. It wouldn't be that hard for Brookings or PPI to do it. Instead, we have these nearly useless wank fests like Camp Wellstone and get our asses kicked.

|W|P|111901778742971586|W|P|A Veritable Potpourri|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/18/2005 07:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We have a start: Democratic Gain...http://www.democratgain.org
I think is the link.6/16/2005 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jeff Simpson asks about the title of this blog, so here is a bit of a history lesson for y'all. In 1884, New York Democratic Governor Grover "Grover the Good" Cleveland was running against Maine Republican Senator James "Blaine from Maine" Blaine. The race was supposed to be tight in New York state, where the Tammany Hall machine was less than enthusiastic about supporting the reform Governor. The Religious Bureau of the Republican National Committee had a get together where a preacher named Dr. Samuel D. Burchard spoke and said:

We are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.

Burchard was summarizing three "bugaboos" that got the Republican "base vote" riled about the Democrats:
  • Rum: Prohibition was the great moral issue of the day, and it divided both major parties. However, then as now, it was easy to tag the Democrats as wrong on a "values" issue. Cleveland had been pounded throughout the campaign for fathering a child out of wedlock, so any charge of moral terpitude tended to stick.
  • Romanism: There were growing throngs of immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Eastern Europe. Since many of these immigrants shared a Catholic background, then considered a dangerous foreign ideology, it became easy to tag them as not quite American. Many of these voters formed the base of the Democratic urban machines.
  • Rebellion: The Republicans were still waving the bloody shirt twenty years after the civil war. Understandable, really.

Cleveland narrowly carried New York and won the presidency. Some people say that Buchard's comments alienated many and helped motivate more Catholics to go to the polls, I doubt it. Cleveland's victory in New York probably had more to do with former Kansas Governor John P. St. John (I love that name), who was running as a Prohibition candidate. St. John was irked at Blaine for various reasons and put a great deal of effort in New York to cut into Blaine's support. What Burchard's comments did was indicate that the Republicans were slowly becoming out of touch with the electorate, bashing a growing immigrant population and waving the bloody shirt wasn't going to win elections anymore.

Some of Nixon's people tried to create an updated version: Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. I suggest this to Jeff as the name of his blog...

I'll leave it up to y'all to find any parallels to the modern day. I have to get back to setting our nation's youth straight.

|W|P|111894143982432969|W|P|Our Three R's|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/16/2005 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well we should start remembering that Republicans have been doing the same damn thing for over a hundred years...And if you know thy enemy....6/17/2005 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim the acid-eating, amnestied, abortionist|W|P|Thanks for the lesson, T-ski!

Long live the Roman Rum Rebellion!6/14/2005 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Michael Bryan, Grand Pooh-bah of the excellent Blog for Arizona, has added me to his blogroll. I've known Mike since 1992, when he made a run for State House on the West side (I bet he thinks no one remembers...). He later told me he wished he ran a better race so he could tell Fife where to stick it. His tag line for me on his blogroll says that I blog "like a mad dog on anti-freeze." I don't quite know what that means. He also refers to me as "leftist, yet rational." Geez...I don't think I've ever been refered to as a leftist...I suppose that says a lot about where political dialogue has gone in this country. They are doing a series of stories on Morning Edition about governors who are in states with legislatures controlled by the other party. This morning's story was on Don Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island. Carcieri is part of a movement by many Republican Governors, Arnold Schwartzenegger most prominently, to slash benefits and pay of public employees. The argument of Carcieri and the others is interesting: you all are struggling with your low pay, while some pampered state employee gets their health paid for and a great pension. It is very easy to see how this argument could fly among working folks struggling to pay the rent. The question I have is this, why do private sector employees get such low pay and benefits compared to public employees? Well, it could have something to do with the lack of unionization in the private sector these days. Around 9% of private sector employees are unionized, whereas 37% of public sector employees are unionized. I don't have the stats on it, but I am willing to bet that a unionized private sector employee gets similar pay and benefits to the public sector employee. (NB-There is an excellent article in The American Prospect about Schwartzenegger's battles with the unions) So, why is union membership so low? Probably because these same Republicans have been doing all they can to strip the union movement of the right to organize, and their allies in the business community have been doing what they can to convince employees that somehow wages will be lower if they unionize. So, they do what they can to make sure that no union is in place to fight for pay and benefits, then they point to the one place where people can organize and complain about the money they are making. Makes you wonder if it was all planned...|W|P|111876783921827081|W|P|The Reviews Are In...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/14/2005 04:24:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Great site. Since you brought up percentages, can you find a legitimate news source/ census data/ demographic statistics that backs up the assertion on last night's The Daily Show that 84% of Republicans are in fact White Christians? I'm sure it is true, but I couldn't track down a site that had the data.6/14/2005 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Tedski!

I am obviously missing an important reference, because I have no idea why there would be even one Rum, Romanism and Rebellion blog, let alone two.

Kindly explain.6/14/2005 07:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|People like sugar.


Oh and there is an active plan by the various employers to prevent employees from benefiting from the perks the employers get from their associations.6/15/2005 06:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Dear anonymous-

The 84% stat is probably based on exit polling. I found that CNN still had their exit polling data from the 2004 election. The trouble with this is that it is in reverse, they are telling you that 78% of Evangelicals voted for Bush, rather than what percentage of Bush voters are Evangelicals. But, I think they give some other percentages there so some multiplication can give you some truer percentages.

What also is probably necessary is some "cross-tabs" I haven't found any of that on the internet. You may want to go ahead and write to the Daily Show and see what poll they got that stat from and go from there.

Here is the CNN Data:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html6/21/2005 11:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Boy, I'm curious, did anyone ever contact Daily Show?6/12/2005 07:25:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I spoke with Katie Bolger today, she noticed that I did not link to Karin Uhlich's website. I could say that I didn't because I don't live in her ward, or I could admit that I didn't know her URL. There is another Rum, Romanism and Rebellion site. Go figure. They even use the same template I do. They have been up for a while. The two people that do it seem a bit more conservative than I am. I hope the fact that there are two of us will not be a problem. If it is, the only way to settle these matters will be ritual combat. I read in this morning's Republic that Debra "Xena" Brimhall has been acquitted of charges stemming from an incident that occurred at last year's Country Thunder Festival. One of the few privileges that state legislators enjoy here is a sort of immunity from some traffic violations when a legislator is on the way to the capitol. Debra, or some facsimile (she claimed it wasn't her), tried to get out of the ticket by claiming that she was a legislator an couldn't get a ticket. This brought up three problems:
  • Florence (the location of the festival) was not on Debra's way to the capitol.
  • The legislature was not in session
  • Debra hadn't been a member of the legislature for two years.
In the end, she claimed that she wasn't at the festival, because she's a "rocker." I would poke fun at this, but she was seen at a recent Stan Ridgway show in Phoenix. This makes her not only a rocker, but a very discerning one. Brimhall was a rather unique legislator. She once was told to put her shoes on during a session, but refused to because she loved the feel of the new carpet on her bare feet. There was talk about changing the legislature's rather lax dress code because of the sometimes bizarre way she would dress. Once, I was up there to watch a session. She took to the microphone durring a vote and rambled. Finally she looked up to the tote board and said, "I'm going to keep talking until more of you vote yes." It didn't work. I was sitting next to a lobbyist who told me that she often does this. As we know, being an oddball has never been a barrier to serving in the Arizona legislature. Brimhall is planning on running for the State House again, this time from Mesa. Some say that Brimhall's first election was due to people being angry that Polly Rosenbaum was no longer really living in the district. Rosenbaum was a long time (really long time...she had served since the 1940's) legislator from Globe, but there was grousing from her opponents that she was really living in Phoenix. Her defeat probably had more to do with opposition to Clinton's environmental policies, it was 1994. This brings me to my other topic (I bet you were wondering about that title). Sens. Karen Johnson and Linda Gray are planning to leave the Phoenix area and run in Greater Arizona. Johnson is planning to run against Bill Kopinicki (R-Safford) because Kopinicki is not sufficiently right-wing for her tastes (we know how liberal Safford is, right?). Gray is planning to move to Prescott, supposedly because she is retiring, but she is going to run for the legislature from up there. Johnson has been in the house before, and her bouncing back and forth probably violates the spirit of the term-limit law. Heck, I think the term-limits should be trashed anyway, so I can't complain too much. I'm not sure that they can actually move out of town without resigning their seats. I mean, how can they file to run from another town, while they are representing someplace else? Hopefully someone will bring this up. There is a certain arrogance here. That somehow, you can just pick up and move and that the voters there should appreciate it. What the heck does Karen Johnson know about the voters in Eastern Arizona? I think she assumes that since they are conservatives, that they will love her. What she doesn't appreciate is that Kopinicki votes the way he does for a reason. Yeah, his constituents are conservative, but there are needs that people in rural Arizona have, and Johnson is opposed to helping them out with them. Rural Republicans that have marched in lockstep with the East Valley crowd have had very short legislative careers (Barbara Blewster, Gail Griffin). The reason for this is simple: the rural areas of the state are actually quite dependent on state programs. The largest employer in many of these towns is a state prison, a state transportation yard or some other sort of state facility. They are often dependent on the state for health care or agricultural services. One of the issues that Marsha Arzberger was able to use against Griffin was her vote to close the health clinics in her district. Griffin voted this way because the East Valley leadership didn't see any need for those clinics; Mesa didn't need them. Unless someone changes the number of districts in this state, we could soon have a situation where no rural community will truly be represented by an actual rural resident. I guess Johnson and Gray want to see that sooner rather than later.|W|P|111863403579546408|W|P|Pack Your Carpetbags!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/13/2005 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Ted, great blog!6/13/2005 07:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Does this mean I'm on your blogroll now?6/11/2005 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I haven't been so good about checking the lefty blogs this week. I fell out of the habit of checking Daily Kos. With this available to me, what is the incentive to post a diary on there? Well, I suppose because more people will read it. There are some folks on there who are rather doctrinaire. One guy wrote me because I didn't understand the full nature and agenda of the corporate media conspiracy. When everyone seemed to be talking about what a great guy George Galloway was, I said, wait a sec, this guy is trouble. I wrote about some of the race baiting and Warsaw Pact justifying things that went on during his campaign to regain a seat in parliament. I was amazed at the vitriol of some of the replies, some e-mailed to me off of the board. One guy told me not to hold his past against him. This was about stuff that went on three weeks before. If a Republican engaged in the campaign tactics this guy did, Kossacks would be livid. But, since he's a lefty, I guess that's okay. Its amazing to see these guys accuse me of apostasy, when they supposedly don't believe in such things. That said, there were some little incidents this week that are worth talking about. On Thursday, Sen. Harry Reid and Gov. Howard Dean held a photo-op and press conference in Reid's office. Wonkette (my sweet Ana Marie!) has an excellent account of the incident, and you can find the video of it on Dem Bloggers. Huffington Post has a rather short description of the event, but I'm linking to it because sometimes she links back... Anyhow, our Highly Proffessional Washington Press Corps couldn't think of anything to ask except about whether or not Dean has said things that are a bit out of bounds. Yeah, good job fellas, news flash: Howard Dean is a Hothead! Stop the presses! At some point, Brian Wilson (the other, much cooler, and now it seems more sane Brian Wilson is pictured) of Fox News asked Dean if he hated white Christians. Dean blew off the question. Then, he asked again. One reporter, seeing he had no credential, said "who are you?" Wilson, in his most professional manner, said "who the fuck are you?" Apparently this continued into the hallway afterward. If I were Dean, I would have said "No, I don't hate White Christians, just you...", but I'm not as measured and calm as Dr. Dean. Wilson is not some fringy blogger or talk show host, he's supposedly a journalist. I'm assuming that his mom and dad paid good money to send him to journalism school, he should do better than this. Any employee of any professional organization that acts this way in public while on duty would get his ass fired. I guess Fox News is not a professional organization. Of course, his colleagues aren't that much better. With all that is going on, you folks couldn't find anything substantive to ask about? Senator Durbin later wondered aloud why the rest of the reporters would let this uncredentialed "moose" run the event. Wilson said that he isn't a moose, but a gazelle. Nice to have no shame, eh Brian? Some jackass named Fred Jackson with American Family Radio is alleging that Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa was elected by illegal aliens. I wondered how long it would take for this to be out there. Out here, racist morons have claimed that Raúl Grijalva, Ed Pastor and even Mo Udall were elected by "illegals." My brother has even heard the cannard that Gov. Napolitano was elected by throngs of the undocumented. What's worse is he hears this from Republican legislators. One Republican candidate in Cochise county claimed after the 2000 election that Marsha Arzberger won with the votes of illegal aliens living in Douglas. Of course, if you suspect every latino you meet of just having jumped over the fence, it would be natural to assume that any candidate with latino support was elected by illegals. And, this would make you, in border parlance, a baboso. MSNBC, not learning from what happened with Michael Savage, has brought a man named Jay Severin on board to be a panelist on Tucker Carlson's new show. Severin has called for the execution of Michael Dukakis, refered to Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and justified date rape. And these boneheads in the press get mad at what Howard Dean says?|W|P|111850972034241948|W|P|Not So Good Vibrations|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/12/2005 02:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|About Dean and the other people getting away with that stuff:

When it comes to the parties there are two standards: One is that the Republicans will be crooks no matter what so if they actually do not act like criminals then we can just ignore it or even when they DO act like criminals they are not killing anyone...ah hell we just do not care about it! The other is the Democrats should be innocent little angels who never do anything more then act kittens. Blind kittens. So when we have one who does fight back the press is shocked. Like you would be if a kitten suddenly turned into a lion that was pissed off and not going to take it anymore.

Something like that.6/10/2005 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to write a long rant about the problems with presidential primaries. I realized that it was way way too long...I think even my most loyal readers would not suffer through it. I'll put it up later when I can figure out how to make it short. Anyhoo...the Pima County Nucleus Club last night featured a panel of legislators: Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, Rep. Phil Lopes, Rep.Ted Tom Prezelski, Rep. Dave Bradley and Rep. Ted Downing. There wasn't a lot of complaining about the session. Usually these sorts of panel discussions are dominated by whinging by one or two newbies who naïvely thought that they would change the world by serving as a Tucson Democrat in the Arizona Legislature. This crew is experienced, at least by post-term limit standards, and they have not become totally cynical. Well...give them another couple of sessions banging their head against the brick wall also known as the East Valley delegation. Giffords, who I've known for more than two decades, started the discussion. In the past, I've been frustrated by her tendency to slip into lege-speak. Gabby, I love you, but it's irritating. She did not do it this time, her talk was down to earth. She gave a great overview of the session, which was more furstration than accomplishment. She refered to the Democratic Senate Caucus as the "Dirty Dozen." This begs the question: Which one is Telly Savalas? Which one is Trini López? Next was Lopes (thank God Rep. Linda López didn't show, it would have been too confusing for the Anglos to sort the Portuguese from the Spanish). Lopes talked about the accomplishments, which were more in the negative. Lopes believed that the governor's veto of the private school tax credit was because the house members had managed to put pressure on her. He also described the moments where Democrats were able to turn back some of the more gawdawful legilation. He also talked about how hard it is to keep the caucus together, particularly when members confuse their own personal agendas with the good of the caucus. I feel that Lopes has done an excellent job. He has been very willing to go out into the public and explain what the Democrats are doing. He is a far cry from one former Democratic leader who told the press in his early interviews that he didn't think party identification was important. Prezelski, Bradley and Downing were each able to point to small victories here and there. Prezelski was proud of a bill he shepherded regarding off-reservation public housing for Native Americans. He got a laugh when he said, "I know some of you will be shocked about this, but some of the Republicans are racist." Bradley gave an articlate argument about morality, and how it to him means helping the least among us. It's the sort of values argument I'd like to see more of our national Democrats making. Downing was good; he took some nice shots at the Republicans. His talk was thankfully free of some of the "I'm the only one that cares" self-promotion that rubs some the wrong way. He has promised to keep pursuing the paper ballot issue. One interesting moment came when the moderator, Steve Emerine, introduced Karen Ulich, Democratic candidate for City Council. He said that everyone needs to support her. I hope this means that Steve and his friends will not be raising money for her Republican opponent as they have in the past.|W|P|111844920045024172|W|P|Nucleus Club Meeting|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2005 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Writing this page is always a bit harder than my other page. On that one, I can do whatever I want. On this one, I actually have to put some sort of thought into it. Well, not always much thought, but thought none the less. I was thinking about the Gospel reading that I heard in church on Sunday. Probably the same one you heard if they use the same calendar. It was from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9. Matthew is enjoying a meal with his friends, who are various low-lifes and tax collecters. Jesus walks in, and Matthew gives up the life with these friends to follow Him. Of course, those Pharisees don't like this one bit, and tell Jesus's followers that he shouldn't be running around with these sorts of people. (Notice how they don't bother to go to Jesus with this complaint? Kind of like some employers I have.) Jesus responds by saying that he did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner. This made me think about the problems I have with some in the evangelical community. I don't want to trash anyone's faith. As a matter of fact, a co-worker of mine is a very strong evangelical (and who takes those inconvienient "love thy neighbor" things seriously) and we probably talk about religion too much for co-workers. What I have trouble with are the people that use their faith as an excuse to parade around claiming they are more righteous than the next guy, the ones who use their religion as an excuse to dislike the people they weren't inclined to like in the first place. The challenge isn't to love and serve people who you like, and are just like you. The real challenge we are called to is to seek out those who are n't like us, and serve them. I read things like this in the Gospels and I wonder if many of the conservative christian leaders would be with Jesus, or with the Pharisees. Anyhoo...that's today's rant.|W|P|111815806874856454|W|P|Sunday's Gospel|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/12/2005 02:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|On my flights (I am scared to death of flying and spend most each flight I get on praying to God to let me land and repeating my favorite Psalm) to Detroit this past weekend I actually prayed for God to allow me to forgive the Republicans (Especially the ones like Bush) for what they do. It was the first time I seriously meant it and when I got of the plane I remembered that I still need to want to forgive them because ultimately they are all of God's creatures even if they do violate Matthew 6:5, because as Jesus once said "forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." That and because one should never ask God for anything that you will not do when out of danger.6/03/2005 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When Harry Reid got selected as Democratic Leader, I kept reading the Washington Pundits go on about how dry and colorless he is. This from people who think that Tucker Carlson is vibrant. I never quite got this. He has a led a fascinating life. The guy was raised by a mother who washed clothes for prostitutes, was played by Tom Smothers in the movie Casino, and at one point got into a fight with LaToya Jackson's ex. Geez, I could never had said any of those things about Dennis DeConcini. Anyhow, check out the interview with him in the new issue of Rolling Stone. Money quote:
Eric Bates: You've called Bush a loser. Senator Reid: And a liar. Bates: You apologized for the loser comment. Reid: But never for the liar, have I?
And to think there were people in the party that thought he didn't have any fight in him.|W|P|111781700878032514|W|P|Why I love Harry Reid|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/11/2005 09:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jami|W|P|nice. it was a mistake for fox or whoever to paint reid as dull. he can only impress us after that. and does every time, in my experience.6/02/2005 10:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It was officially announced yesterday that Councilmember Carol West has officially changed from being a Democrat to an independent. This move probably shouldn't effect any of the day to day activities of the council, since it is not organized on a partisan basis. The only thing it may do is allow West to be more open about her support for Republicans Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar. There had already been griping from at least one council candidate that she had been helping Ronstadt. I have no personal problems with Carol West. She seems like a very nice woman and we always have pleasant conversations. However, she threw in with the Republicans on the council; she threw in big with them. She didn't act as a moderate, someone who both sides could go to and would provide a swing vote. She acted only as a fourth vote for whatever Rondstadt, Dunbar and Walkup wanted. A responsible moderate would be someone who would vote against the more extreme positions, keep Fred and Kathleen honest. She was just a rubber-stamp. Even on issues where it should have been easy for a Democrat to vote yes, like asking Kinder-Morgan to build in a new place so gasoline wouldn't rain down on neighborhoods, she took the "All Businessmen Can Do What They Want and Damn the Residents" Republican side. A few years ago, there was an attempted settlement with Eller Media over the ongoing billboard lawsuits. The settlement was deeply flawed, and it prompted me to send faxes to several council members (I didn't bother with Fred). I recieved calls from a couple of members, including West. The calls from the other council members would be questions about the settlement and what I thought of this or that. First question from West was, "How did you know about this?" I told her I had some sources. Why was that the question, rather than the substance of the fax? By the way, the deal was killed, not by West being a swing vote, but by Bob Walkup telling Ronstadt what a horrible idea it was. The dearth of coverage of this has been interesting. It got covered in the Tucson Citizen, but didn't make it into C. J. Karamargin's weekly column or the Star. It also did not make the Tucson Weekly's political columns. Either the local media realizes that Carol hadn't been working with the Democrats for a long time, or once again, they don't give a rat's ass about local politics. I liked Carol's husband Neil, who did a great deal of work for the local party. It looks like I'm going to get his slot on the State Committee.|W|P|111773736289788246|W|P|West Quits Party|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/01/2005 08:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A friend at work recieved an e-mail off of a list of homeschoolers he is on:
This starts today. Save your gas receipts! It's a 10 cents per gallon rebate. (Mark checked this out...it's not me passing on an urban legend :) Forward to anyone who uses gas! SAVE THOSE GAS RECEIPTS FROM MEMORIAL DAY THRU LABOR DAY 2005! The legislature has just passed a bill to rebate us (in ARIZONA) for some of the tax we pay on gas at the pump. Save all receipts to get the rebate. here is the info below. In case you can't connect from the link below go to www.azleg.state.az.us and SEARCH for bill number 2781. The basic provisions are: Provisions Motor Vehicle Fuel purchased between May 30, 2005 through September 5, 2005 will be eligible for a partial rebate of motor vehicle fuel taxes. Consumers will apply to the ADOT for the rebate. Rebate set at ten cents per gallon not to exceed $200 per consumer. ADOT will pay the rebate from the state general fund. Consumers will be able to apply for the rebate from September 6, 2005 through June 6, 2006. See full bill here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summ
Sounds good. The only trouble is, the bill never made it to hearing. It was introduced late in the session, with great fanfare. Once folks started looking at it, they realized it was totally unworkable. Anyone remember alt-fuels? I hope no motivation other than ignorance prompted the e-mail. There doesn't seem to be any way that someone could make money off of it, so "scam" is probably a strong word. I think of those e-mails claiming that people are trying to remove crosses from Arlington, changing the oath sworn at courts or taking religious references off of monuments. Its like the only purpose is to get people riled up, regardless of facts.|W|P|111768410332739506|W|P|Bad Bill Prompts e-Mail Scam|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2005 02:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|damn, and I was just saving my receipts too. Bastards.6/01/2005 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our Republican Friends in the legislature are now threatening to send the governor the exact same "school choice" bill she vetoed. Um...how exactly is that supposed to work? She's supposed to be all frightened of them? Bear in mind here, this isn't a veto override, its just them passing the damn bill over and over again until she, I guess, forgets that she's opposed to it. I haven't seen polls yet, but unless there is a major backlash against her for this supposed "lying" that she did, I can't see them being anywhere close to victorious in this fight. I'm not sure how they can argue that she lied. If she did, it was the exact same lie that they themselves told the press and Democratic legislators. It's never stops being funny, these big manly men in the Republican leadership, and Janet always wins the cojones contests. I work with drop-outs, many of whom are in and out of the juvenile justice system. Its interesting when I ask why they got arrested. The reasons fall into a couple of different categories:
  • Somebody snitched
  • The cop was a jerk
  • My PO "violated me"

Interesting thing is missing in all of those, a reason that goes along the lines of "I messed up..."

I thought of this yesterday when the news of the Supreme Court overturning Arthur Andersen's conviction hit. Various business publications have been making excuses for these guys, and complaining that the big bad government caused all of this. Um, excuse me? Arthur Andersen destroyed documents to cover up the whole Enron business, no disputing that, but the court found a problem with the jury instructions about who was culpable. No court found them "innocent" or "exhonerated" them. Hey, Wall Street Journal, I don't remember you ever looking at dropped charges and not guilty verdicts against Bill Clinton's friends as an "exhoneration." Maybe it's time for publications like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to hold their corporate friends to the same sorts of legal standards that they expect poor people and liberal minded politicians to.

Ah, too much to expect today.

|W|P|111764430660876371|W|P|Everybody Knows|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/02/2005 12:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger tucsonteresa|W|P|I really like the photo of the Governor. Is that how she takes care of Republicans?