8/31/2005 07:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Republican chattering mobs are making a bit more noise lately about Sen. Ken Bennett running for governor next year. He can't officially announce due to our state's "Resign to Run" law, but they certainly are talking him up. According to Espresso Pundit, leading Republicans are saying that "Goldwater's campaign is going nowhere...Bennett is looking good." Going nowhere? Geez, he only announced a month ago. Give the poor guy a break! Geez, you guys didn't expect Teresa Ottesen to produce so quickly. I suppose that's the drawback of a famous name: it raises expectations. Espresso Pundit also quotes another source who says that several members of the congressional delegation, including Sen. John McCain, are backing a Bennett run. Interestingly, Bennett said back in December that he wasn't going to run. Hmm...if he runs, this will break new ground. See, he said that after he had already won re-election. So, he won't even be breaking a campaign promise. Maybe you are allowed to break a promise you make after the campaign is over. I guess the Republicans have finally given up on Marilyn Quayle and Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The very concept that the Republicans considered Marilyn Quayle a dream candidate makes my head swim. I'm also not hearing the names of either Speaker Jim Weiers or Rep. Russell Pearce. They may still make a go of it, but its hard to see how they could if the "establishment" lines up behind Bennett. Pearce may still be looking at a run against U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake.|W|P|112554087300328132|W|P|Bennett for Governor?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/31/2005 11:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Last year Bennett, who is the CEO of Bennett Oil, co-sponsored a bill (SB1337)that would have used state money to clean up leaking underground fuel storage tanks. Bennett Oil had a leaking tank and was previously been denied cleanup funds by ADEQ, holding that it was Bennett Oil's responsibility. Bennett claimed there was no confliect of interest.8/29/2005 06:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ann Coulter, so life like!The Arizona Daily Star has cut Ann Coulter's column. This is a revealing comment from the new editor:
Finally, we've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.
I'll resist saying anything about Ann Coulter, because I end up getting into a violent mood and then I make the same sort of worthless ad hominem attacks that she does. That makes me no better than her. Plus, ad hominem attacks on her whiny anorexic ass are too easy. See, there I go. The editor, David Stoeffler, reveals a lot in the above statement. Maybe, at long last, the conversation in this country has become too much of a food fight and people are saying "enough!" The cancellation of Crossfire and the near hostile response from conservative pundits to Edward Klein's book, The Truth About Hillary, make me wonder if we have actually turned the corner on this one. Maybe the people in the media are finally getting tired of the nearly-rote attacks substituting for political debate we have had in this country for the past few years. I'm not one of these people that think that before the invention of television, every political debate in this country has been high minded. A quick perusal through the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates will disabuse anyone of that notion. I know that we have always had slimy partisanship in our history. Sen. John C. Frémont was accused of cannibalism when he ran for president, and believe it or not, Thomas Jefferson was accused of a daliance with a slave, even having a child with her. Uh, what? I hope that this an indication that the media are finally starting to look at themselves and figure out if what they are doing is really contributing to the betterment of this country. I'm not the only one taking some hope for bigger things from this; this is getting some national play, with Media Matters for America featuring it on their website. I grew up as a political news junkie. My aunt tells me that my first words were from the news. She says that when Richard Nixon appeared on TV I would say "impeach." It's sad that I have ditched watching regular newscasts and have taken to watching Jon Stewart (a comedian) and Keith Olberman (a sportscaster) for my nightly news. I don't know what the heck they are teaching in journalism school these days, but something has to change. N.B.- I couldn't figure out why the Star ran her column at all, given that one of the first ones they published not only made a series of false allegations against the Pima County Attorney's office (there are plenty of true things to write about, believe me!), but trashed the Star itself and even called one of their reporters a moron. The Star even ran a small response to the column. This all stemmed from the pie-attacks at the University of Arizona, and Coulter's refusal to help the prosecution. Update: Both Salon and Editor and Publisher have run items on the Star dropping Coulter's column. Maybe we've got ourselves a movement.|W|P|112536573795399092|W|P|But We Just Realized Exactly How Much We Disliked Her|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/29/2005 11:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, sportscasters at least show some integrity. A couple of weeks ago, Bob Costas showed some when he refused to appear as a substitute host on Larry King when he found out that the subject of the show was going to be Natalie Holloway.

Of course, Faux News has pretty much become the 'All-Aruba-all-the-time' network whenever the news from Iraq, etc. is bad for Bush (which is most of the time) although right at the moment they have the hurricane to fill time.8/28/2005 10:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A sub-headline from Robbie Sherwood's Political Insider column in this morning's Arizona Republic:
Another great story undone by overly thorough reporting
I'll let that stand on it's own.|W|P|112525027687468670|W|P|Oh Robbie, King of all Irony|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/28/2005 07:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our favorite border vigilante, Chris Simcox, has endorsed Don Goldwater. I'm thinking of that moment in the 1964 election when leaders of the Ku Klux Klan announced their support of Barry Goldwater, Don's uncle. Someone said, "Goldwater isn't for the racists, but all the racists are for Goldwater." I'll give this Goldwater the benefit of the doubt and say that he isn't racist either. At least for now. Goldwater threw down the gauntlet on immigration in his otherwise dull announcement speech a couple of weeks ago.
"In an outrageous abuse of power, our governor has chosen to ignore the will of the people by refusing to enact all provisions of the new law," Goldwater, nephew of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, said in his prepared speech.
Asked for details later, he said provisions to require identification to cast a ballot have yet to be implemented. [Gov. Janet] Napolitano has said that's because she's following the advice of Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Goldwater noted the other half of Proposition 200 denies state and local benefits to people living here illegally. "My first full week in office," he said, "I will transmit policy directives to all state agencies for the training of state personnel on how to fully implement Proposition 200."
It was this that led Simcox, as well as many others on the far right, to be excited by the otherwise colorless Goldwater. (Something I always find interesting: The supporters of Proposition 200 would say that it only applied to welfare benefits and not other state services. Many Arizonans want such benefits to only go to people here legally, so they bought the argument and it passed. Then, the Governor and Attorney General say, "It only applies to welfare benefits" and the supporters scream: "No! It's supposed to apply to other state services!") As we all recall, the entire Republican establishment came out against Proposition 200 last year. Even Sen. Jon Kyl, who couldn't find a way to condemn lynching decades after the fact, was against it. They found it racist and divisive back then. Now, their leading candidate for governor is mad because the Governor won't enforce it the way he wants. If it was racist and divisive last year, what makes this year so different? Simcox says that his endorsement is as a single private citizen, and does not represent the endorsement of the Arizona Minutemen. I'm sure that Goldwater wants to keep up this pretention, since he probably isn't the least bit interested in being affiliated with some of the racists and head cases in the organization. However, it is difficult to imagine that Simcox did this without the at least the implied assent of the members of the group. Sometime next week, expect someone like Steve Gallardo or Raúl Grijalva to call for Goldwater to disavow the endorsement. Expect Goldwater to give no response whatsoever. This what Republicans feel like they have to do all too often. I will make no guess as to how much of the Republican base is mouth breathing racist neanderthals. I doubt that it is as big as the fantasies of some of the people on my side of the aisle. It is big enough, or at least the Republicans perceive it as big enough, that they are afraid of alienating them. Goldwater doesn't agree with the racist members of the Minutemen, but he needs to give them a wink and a nod, and for now they are happy with this. We all have a couple of caricatures of a racist: the knuckle dragging, tabacky spitting moron or maybe the meth addicted skinhead. These types are such imbeciles its hard to think that they even could know better. Then you get so-called "leaders" who are so afraid of angering these folks that despite the fact that they know better, they pander to the worst in our society so that they can move other parts of their agenda. When you are educated, know better and still accomodate these attitudes, it's worse than being a racist. This is the sort of game that Don Goldwater (whose family had to put up with the genteel anti-semitism prevalent in Phoenix a few decades ago) is playing. Its the sort of game that Jon Kyl played when he didn't want to go on record with an apology for lynching. Something that they might want to remember: even George Wallace got to a point when he couldn't sleep at night. NB - A bit of related good news over the last few weeks: The Southern Poverty Law Center helped two Salvadoran immigrants sue Casey Nethercott for some abuse that they suffered. The two immigrants, Fatima Leiva and Edwin Mancia, were successful and now own Nethercott's ranch, Camp Thunderbird.|W|P|112523786358650333|W|P|As Expected|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/25/2005 05:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is the latest from the Clean Elections Commission on the case of Rep. David Burnell Smith, which I commented on yesterday:
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission has accepted the decision of Administrative Law Judge Daniel G. Martin in the matter of David Burnell Smith. Earlier this week, Martin upheld the Commission's original March 25th order that Smith 1) forfeit his office as State Representative for District 7; 2) repay his Clean Elections grants totaling $34,625.09; and 3) pay a fine of $10,000. Smith now has 14 days to ask the Commission for a rehearing. The Commission could meet the next day after the request is filed (giving 24 hours notice) and decide if a rehearing is warranted. Once the rehearing matter is satisfied, case law appears to say that Smith's office then becomes legally vacant. At that point, our attorneys believe the Attorney General's office could petition the Arizona Supreme Court to order Smith out of office. That would be the most expeditious scenario. Smith can also appeal to the Superior Court and has 35 days to do so from the effective date of today's Commission order. The Superior Court's decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeals or directly to the Supreme Court. This is all new legal territory so there are no previous cases to determine the exact legal course. However, the case is proceeding and we feel confident that the Clean Elections law will be upheld. This is critical to ensuring the integrity of the law. We will keep you posted.
It sounds as though will go on for at least another month. Smith ought to realize that the writing is on the wall here, and the best thing to do will be to resign.|W|P|112501565564490867|W|P|Smith Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/25/2005 09:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Smith won't resign. He'll continue appealing his case until his term is over, making a complete joke out of the Clean Election rules. The Arizona courts will allow him to do this. Wait and see if I'm not right.9/02/2005 12:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I agree. Smith is himself hostile to Clean Elections (though he used the program) and is certainly being urged and financed to try to make a hash of any precedent allowing Clean Elections to eject a lawmaker from office.

No, Smith will only leave kicking and screaming. Then next cycle he'll be back and will be running as the wrongly deposed sovereign of his district and a cause celebre of the GOP. I can imagine the black helicopter conspiracy theorizing even now...8/25/2005 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Oraibi, but I don't know if there is a Kiva thereMaybe it's an exercise in ego, but I like to do searches to see who has been linking to me. I found a blog called Just Deserts from here in Tucson that has been linking to my articles for a few weeks. The author goes by the name "Kiva Oraibi," which is effin' cool. Anyhow, check it out. Her main issues seem to be immigration and marriage equality. Also, she wants the story of Tawa the Sun god to be taught along side evolution and intelligent design. What about I'itoy?|W|P|112501135070186004|W|P|My New Favorite|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/25/2005 09:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Way cool. Do you have any idea who it is?8/25/2005 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I would agree that IF intelligent design is thought then her hypothesis deserves equal consideration. However, as I posted on August 2 ("Just science belongs in science class) and again on August 5 ("Darwinian theory stands on its own two feet") there is a qualitative difference between evolution, for which plenty of supporting evidence has been collected (I collected some myself in my fruitfly experiments in genetics lab a few years ago) and what is put forward as a hypothesis based on personal belief but with no supporting evidence.8/26/2005 08:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kiva|W|P|Do you have any idea who it is?

I'm secret, deliberately. I'm sure it will eventually get out, not even Duncan Black stayed anonymous, but for now, getting started, I want to hide a little.

Just think of me as a coyote, sitting at a computer, typing away with her front paws and her nose.

As for teaching intelligent design, I agree 100% with Eli. I actually WOULD like to see alternative myths taught, but in a religion/culture class, not in a science class. The point of my post was simply to point out how absurd I think the Intelligent Design/Creationist argument is.

Hugs and kisses,
Kiva8/27/2005 01:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|kiva:

Thanks for the support.

And I have always had one question for proponents of intelligent design:

IF they really believe (as intelligent design states) that the very complexity and interworking of the world could not have come to pass except for God making it perfect, then wouldn't that at least lead an honest proponent of the theory to be an environmentalist?

Well, apparently not President Bush (maybe it's the adjective, 'honest' that is causing the contradiction).8/25/2005 06:01:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Washington Monthly has an interesting pair of articles in its recent issue. In one, Carl Cannon argues that Hillary Clinton is not the gawdawful candidate some scared Democrats are worried about, and in the other Amy Sullivan argues that she isn't as bad as they say, but she'd be a bad idea nonetheless. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but Cannon's article made me rethink the possibility of her candidacy. Many in the Democratic party's itelligencia have been trashing her as an unelectable candidate based on anecdotal evidence, probably from their Republican friends. Cannon, however, takes a look at polling data:
The available data do not suggest she is unelectable—they suggest just the opposite. A Gallup poll done a week before Memorial Day showed Sen. Clinton with a favorable rate of 55 percent. True, her unfavorable number is 39 percent, which is high enough for concern—but one that is nearly identical to Bush's on the eve of his reelection. And the unfavorable rating registered by Republican contender Bill Frist was nearly as high as his favorable numbers, with 32 percent saying they'd never heard of him.
He points out also that the argument that "Yeah, this is before the right wingers attack her," is rather moot, since few can imagine that the right can come up with more to throw at her. I haven't finished the Sullivan article yet, but I was one of those "insiders" (sort of) who always thought that Hillary Clinton would be taken apart by a Republican nominee. I've always disparaged the defeatist attidude that many insiders have about our candidates, as if the whole country outside of the east coast are a bunch of slack jawed klansmen that can't possibly vote for one of our people, so lets nominate someone boring and moderate and hope that no one notices that he or she is a Democrat. As I read the article, I realized that I was repeating their arguments when it came to Clinton. One thing I found funny about the article that should make any right winger cringe is his comparison of Clinton's candidacy to that of Ronald Reagan's in 1980. I'm still not sure if I support her for the nomination. I worked for Gen. Wesley Clark in the last primaries, and I already have been giving out Clark 08 buttons. The candidacy of Gov. Bill Richardson intrigues me as well, so who knows. Speaking of General Clark, he had a commentary calling for intervention in Darfur (audio here) last week on NPR. Clark was so disgusted by the massacre in Rwanda ten years ago, that he pressured Pres. Clinton to get involved in Kosovo. Now he is arguing for the U.S. to use its power to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Too bad that it seems the entire military is somewhere else. On the subject of Kosovo, Billmon has an interesting post on his blog. One thing that has been sticking in my craw is how the right keeps arguing about "supporting our president when we have troops in combat," but when we were in Kosovo, they tried to have the president impeached. All part of the new "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy of the conservatives.|W|P|112497758902351113|W|P|Reconsidering Hillary|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/25/2005 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Get on board now - Hillary will be the next president, with Bill Richardson as VP and perhaps Wes Clark as Secretary of State....8/25/2005 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|What bothers me about Hillary is not her electiblity, but her willingness to embrace the DLC wing of the party and pander to the right. Even if Hillary wins, what have we won? By the time Bush's terms is over, people will be ready to spit on Republicans. We can do better than Hillary.8/25/2005 11:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|zelph is absolutely right.

I don't doubt that Hillary is electable (a million people paid $28 apiece for her book a couple of years ago, unheard of for a political book, and the same million people would certainly pay at least as much to make her President, even before she starts in with the traditional fundraising trail).

But her husband was 'electable,' and we got 'don't ask, don't tell,' welfare reform, the 1995 anti-terror act (the precursor to the Patriot Act), billions of dollars in corporate welfare, and NAFTA.

Hillary's record in the Senate has been not only 'moderate,' but in some cases downright conservative.

If she is our nominee, I will support her, but I certainly am disinclined to support her in the primary.8/24/2005 06:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|(Former?) Rep. David Burnell SmithIn another victory for the Clean Elections system, an administrative law judge said that the Clean Elections Commission was right to remove Rep. David Burnell Smith from office for violating the terms of his Clean Elections contract. The commission unanamously concluded a few months ago that Smith exceeded the limits set forth in the Clean Elections public financing law. The law states that overstepping the limit by 10% is enough of a violation to nullify your election. Smith's expenditures broke the limit by 11%. The Clean Elections law has withstood many challenges regarding its use of public money to finance campaigns. This is a different sort, but very important, test: does the commission that enforces the rules have the power to mete out the ultimate political punishment? The decision now goes back to the commission, but there is no reason to think that they will do anything but concur with the court's opinion. From there, Smith could appeal the decision to a higher court, or the commission can go to the supreme court, which would obviate any opinion from a lower court. So this isn't over yet, but it could be soon. Smith is a freshman legislator, and was a perennial candidate before that. He's an easy target to take out. I wonder what would happen if a more prominent candidate violated the rules? So far, the only case that seems to approach this level of punishment is the fine given to a group of libertarian candidates, another easy target. The real test comes when a long time legislative leader or a candidate for state wide office violates the rules. Smith's various defenses have been amusing. At one point, he had his accountant shuffle the books and move expenses to different dates. The judge pooh-poohed this one in his decision. He also claims that he can only be removed through recall or impeachment. Not true. Corporation Commissioner Tony West was thrown out for holding a securities license. They actually nullified his election and put his predecessor, Renz Jennings, back in office until a successor could be appointed. I've heard Smith's supporters claim that it's too hard to follow the Clean Elections rules, and that its a simple mistake and so unfair. If Smith and others like him (there are several others, all advised by a consultant named Constantine Querard) don't like the "onerous" rules of the Clean Elections system, they can opt out. Nothing forces a candidate to run "clean" except public pressure. These guys never liked the system in the first place, so why should they run under it anyway? That is the main point to remember. Smith (who brags of a JD on his legislative biography) signed a contract saying he would abide by the rules. As many of you know, I work with teenage dropouts. The kids have to sign a contract saying that they will not do drugs, wear gang colors, use their phones in class, things like that. We pay them a stipend and give them an education, that's the deal. Sure enough, I'll get a kid wearing colors talking on his cell phone. They'll complain that they don't know the rules; I tell them that they signed a contract. They say, "I didn't read it," as if that's a defense. I tell them that after they graduate, I'd like to lease them a car. Need a new car, Mr. Smith?|W|P|112493493472774320|W|P|Victory for Clean Elections|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/24/2005 10:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|You have a cap, you don't spend over it. What is so hard to follow? And just to pad the margin to account for bonehead accounting, the penalties don't even kick in until you exceed the cap by 10%.

The fact is that David Burnell Smith, who never was a supporter of the clean elections law (in fact I remember reading an article that said he had been on record in the past as opposing it) brazenly and blatantly flouted the rules, almost daring the commission to take action.

Further, if his accounting is really as slipshod as he claims, well, then, you might suggest he needs to lease a car. I would recommend that the IRS audit his tax returns.8/22/2005 08:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Barbara BlewsterEven though she was turned out of office a few years ago, Rep. Barbara Blewster still feels that she has much to contribute to the debate. She recently sent out an e-mail to the members of the legislature:
Dear Members, Thank you again for voting for the Stop the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA) Resolution. Relating to the Jefferson quote below we need to rescind the 17th Amendment. Be thinking about it as a resolution to Congress. "[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." --Thomas Jefferson Barbara Blewster
I have a little trouble drawing a logical line from the Jefferson quote to bringing back appointed senators. Those who remember her single term in the legislature will not be suprised that her thinking rarely involves reason or logic. The only reason that this is worth bringing up though is that this is not the first time I have heard the far right suggest such a thing. It seems to come up on op-ed pages and letters to the editor every couple of years. The argument goes that somehow elected senators are naturally inclined to be spendthrifts who put all sorts of burdens on state governments, and the only way to cure this is to go with what the founders wanted: an unelected, elite senate (George F. Will's argument for term-limits is similar.) Blewster and others like her love to invoke American history and the founders, but seem to be rather challenged when it comes to the history of our own state and the movements that created it. The progressive and populist movements had deep roots here in Arizona at the time the state constitution was written. The two movements were very different, but they agreed on one basic thing: the solution to the problems with our democracy can be cured by more democracy. The progressives were the ones who managed to push for the 17th ammendment that provided for direct election of senators. Interestingly, Arizona had direct election of Senators from the moment of statehood. (Technically, before statehood, since the election was held early so the senators could be sworn in when President Taft signed the statehood bill.) Aside from that, I have to ask, what Senator over the past 30 years would Blewster and those who agree with her would have wanted to ditch? Well, I figured that Dennis DeConcini would have been gone. Who else? Arizona has elected mostly conservatives. I mean, not just conservatives, but conservative icons: Goldwater, Fannin, Kyl, McCain. Who among these are not the proper kind of conservatives? Would Mrs. Blewster, or the others that have talked about this, please tell me? By the way, Blewster is not just a voice in the wilderness. She's the president of our state's Republican Assembly, the ones who love "RINO Hunts". They are having a convention in Scottsdale in a few weeks. Plenty of material for smart-asses like me.|W|P|112476891848523442|W|P|Too Much Democracy|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/22/2005 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It makes perfect sense that Republicans want to appoint Senators.

By controlling the legislatures, they can easily enough gerrymander legislative districts to maintain this control. They also are pretty skilled at gerrymandering Congress. This has allowed them to maintain control of both the majority of legislatures and Congress for over a decade.

Their problem is that they can't gerrymander state lines. So, even though right now the GOP has more Senators (despite the fact that in the last election cycle for all 100 Senate seats, Democrats got more votes), they aren't as secure in their control.

For most of us, that wouldn't be a problem, we would feel that in order to be chosen by the people, you have to earn it. But for control freaks like the far right, such a situation, one which they can't completely control, is unacceptable.8/23/2005 03:29:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|I checked out one of the links to the "Republican Assembly" site. I was particularly amused by the little chile peppers with the sombreros. Is this their image of what Mexican culture is about? Are we sure that these peppers are here legally?8/23/2005 04:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/23/2005 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|http://www.azstarnet.com/vote2000/1004.shtml#7

Back in 2000:

Hull withdraws Blewster endorsement

The Dewey lawmaker gained notoriety last year by sending an e-mail to a constituent about legislation to bar government agencies from offering such benefits as health insurance to the domestic partners of public workers. "The perversion that follows homosexuality is bestiality and then human sacrifice and cannibalism," Blewster wrote.

That was followed by a comment to Rep. Barbara Leff that she didn't look Jewish because she "didn't have a big hooked nose."

Other legislators also said Blewster told them that Indians were stupid for voluntarily giving up their lands, that the slave trade resulted in only a few deaths and that life for blacks in the United States has been "just fine" since Lincoln freed the slaves. Blewster has denied those comments.
8/23/2005 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|My boyfriend said about the last comment: "I am surprised that this guy did not include necrophilia."8/24/2005 08:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I bet Brewster is a member of the '700 club' too (since Reverend Pat has now moved up to the point where he has decided that it is OK to ask the government to murder the democratically elected leader of a foreign country because he doesn't agree with us politically).8/24/2005 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Another amusing quote from the article previously cited:

Blewster still has the backing of the Arizona Republican Party. And that, said Nathan Sproul, the party's executive director, is unlikely to change.

"We're going to do everything we can to elect Republicans to office," Sproul said. Asked whether that meant endorsing anyone who carries the Republican banner, he answered: "Within reason."


Then Republican Party head, Nathan Sproul, apparently considered Barbara Blewster's remarks within reason. Nathan Sproul went on to become the king of voter fraud in the 2004 election. Google his name.

It's unlikely that Barb belongs to the 700 Club, she's a Mormon. 700 Clubbers regard Mormonism as "a satanic cult".8/22/2005 06:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Other Russell PierceState Rep. Russell Pearce has proposed annother one of his incredibly practical solutions to our state's border woes. He is drafting a bill to call for a referendum to ask for new taxes and fees to raise $580 million to build a wall along the border. ($580 million! Wow, we could use that to give away to, I dunno, people that claim that their cars run on alt-fuel or something.) That's somewhere around $1.7 million per mile. I would go into a rant about all of the things that we could spend $1.7 million on, but the fact is, Pearce and his ilk don't care about such things. What strikes me most is the impracticality of the whole thing. So, we want the state to build this thing. It can only be built on state land, or on private land if we get permission. Since Pearce is abandoning his conservative principles and now is for tax increases, maybe this also means now he has no problems with takings either. Maybe he thinks the state can bully their way into building it on private land. Roughly one fifth of the length of the border is the Tohono O'Odham nation, with a large chunk of the rest taken up by Organ Pipe Monument and the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. These are under the jurisdiction of federal and tribal governments, who are probably not the least bit interested in having the state build a wall across their land, and there isn't much the state can do to force this to happen. Okay, lets just assume for a minute that somehow the this thing actually gets built. So, now what? People will not cross, I dunno, thirty miles east of Douglas? Maybe just across the Colorado River? This is just another example of a totally unworkable "solution" proposed by Pearce. Last session, he moved through a bill forcing local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill, of course, provided no money to our already stretched local law enforcement agencies to do this. I guess Pearce and his friends are not so much against "unfunded mandates" anymore either. Pearce spends his time on this dog and pony show, and has the nerve to say that Governor Napolitano is grandstanding on the issue. NB: The Arizona Daily Star ran an editorial last week on this issue. Yes, I re-ran the picture of RSL's Rusty Pierce. It is a joke only I find funny, but that is enough.|W|P|112476350040188744|W|P|I'm All For It If They Build It Along the Gila Instead|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/22/2005 09:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|I thought the picture was funny now that I'm in on the joke. But Pearce himself is an even bigger joke.8/22/2005 09:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/22/2005 09:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/22/2005 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|People are already dying in record numbers trying to get in here. You think a big concrete wall will stop them? Did you ever hear of a ladder and a rope?

And when it fails, what exactly more does he plan to do? Suggest we put up guard towers every hundred yards with guards who have orders to shoot to kill a la the Berlin Wall (of course, people found all kinds of creative ways to get over, under, through and around that one too).

I guess he thinks that only Americans have ingenuity.8/22/2005 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|A good title for Pearce's project would be:

Build it and they will come (anyway).8/23/2005 08:15:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Hey Ted you see what Pat Roberts is calling for with Hugo Chavez?8/23/2005 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|anonymous:

I just posted on it on my blog (http://tiodt.blogspot.com).

It is ironic that a 'man of God' endorses murder of someone he doesn't happen to like (and a Democratically elected leader at that). What is scary is that some of the things that Pat Robertson was pushing and which were 'way out there' a few years ago (like writing discrimination against gay people into the Constitution) is now pretty much standard fare for the right wing.8/23/2005 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|How bout we built a wall around Mesa that would keep out Russell Pearce, Eddie Farnsworth and Karen Johnson?8/24/2005 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Zelph:

I thought it would be better to deport them to Mexico without any documents and let them see what it feels like to walk back here.8/21/2005 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Governor Janet Napolitano should sit in her office all day and anonymously sign paperwork. So says former State Senator John Greene, who this week filed a complaint about Napolitano's activities with the office of Attorney General Terry Goddard. No word on Goddard's reaction when it crossed his desk, but I'm guessing it was somewhere between indifference and a smirk. Greene's beef is that Napolitano's name and face has been appearing on billboards promoting tourism. Despite this being common practice in every state of the union, Greene feels that it is unprecedented and unfair. Boo hoo. Greene's frustration comes from a couple of different places. The biggest one is this: the Republicans have not had to run against an incumbent Democratic governor since 1982 (In that year, Bruce Babbitt pulverized Leo Corbett). The talk in Republican circles (as well as among some Democrats, you know who you are!) was that Napolitano was a one term fluke who would be easily beaten by any Republican, maybe even Joe Sweeney. What was never considered was the power of an incumbent executive. Even one that whose policies are widely unpopular can be difficult to beat, ask Sen. John Kerry about this one. Or, you can ask Mayor Paul Johnson, who ran against an ineffectual and boring Gov. Jane Hull in 1998 and got his hat handed to him. Or, ask Regent Eddie Basha, who was personally very popular but got beaten by the thoroughly disliked Gov. Fife Symington back in 1994. Unless you really mess up, or are running against a really spectacular candidate, people are generally willing to let you finish the job you were elected to do. The last incumbent to lose was Gov. Sam Goddard back in 1966. This means that in my lifetime, no governor has been defeated, but one resigned, one died, one was impeached, and one was convicted of a felony. If you'd like to over-interpret that data, a governor stands a better chance of being appointed ambassador to Argentina or impeached for misuse of goverment funds than losing an election. The other thing that is happening here is the Republicans are having to face the unpopularity of their policies. Despite any evidence to the contrary, they have convinced themselves that the vast majority of Arizonans share even the most retrograde parts of their agenda and share their opinion that Napolitano is some sort of Trotskyite knee-jerk extremist. The legislative leadership has gone toe to toe with Napolitano and has expected the populace to rise to their side. Instead, their issues have been met with either indifference or hostility from regular citizens. They have been shocked by this, but it is only natural, since most of them get elected from such gerrymandered districts, they never have to talk to anyone but the most conservative voters. To run for governor, their candidate actually has to talk to other sorts of voters. It is useful to point out that Rep. J. D. Hayworth and others who have bowed out of the race did so long before Napolitano's four foot tall face was touting the joys of riding the rapids in the Grand Canyon. They did this because polling data showed that the polularity of Napolitano's actions made a race Quixotic. This why they are left with the largely unknown Greene and the dull Don Goldwater. Maybe they ought to be looking at the sort of agenda their state leaders have been following and ask if this is really good policy and good politics.
***
Some notes on this that really didn't fit in above: I saw no complaints from the Republican side when Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley was sending county-funded mailings to Sierra Vista (in Cochise County!) touting the accomplishments of his office. This was back when he was talking about running for governor. I also saw no complaints about Seceretary of State Jan Brewer using Help Amerca Vote Act money (money that is supposed to be used to, um, help people vote) to send out postcards with her name and face on them. But, I guess that's okay since they are Republicans. I also remember a while back that Pima County Supervisor Paul Marsh was angry when Sheriff Clarence Dupnik started a major anti-gang initiative. Marsh said that it was only for reelection. Dupnik was years away from what, as usual, would be an easy re-election. Marsh was angry at Dupnik because Dupnik was doing his job. Imagine that. By the way, Marsh lost his next primary, Dupnik is still around. Tucson Weekly reporter Jim Nintzel talked a bit about Greene's complaint on Arizona Illustrated. He was dismissive, but wondered what anti-billboard activist Mark Mayer* would say about Napolitano's use of billboards. Meyer will probably call me about it, so I'll keep you all informed. *I originally spelled Mayer's name incorrectly, and I was hapilly corrected my a member of our legislature. R3 regrets the error.|W|P|112463127355754825|W|P|Being a Challenger Is a Bitch, Ennit?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/21/2005 08:27:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|The name is "Mayer" not "Meyer."

Charles F. Meyer was a pharmacist and judge in Tucson during the 1870s. Meyer street is named for him. He is no relation to Mark.8/21/2005 09:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez.8/21/2005 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Natalie|W|P|Tom told you!8/21/2005 02:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/21/2005 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well, according to Republicans when they do something, it is always perfect and right, but if anyone else does it, it is wrong and illegal.

Which is why they get so damn mad when they illegally invade a soverign nation and people complain about it.8/22/2005 08:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|Great catch, Ted. Linked to it on the blog.8/16/2005 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| I spoke to a friend of mine who is a supporter of Steve Farley's campaign the other day. He was concerned that Nina Trasoff may be going negative on Farley. I'm not sure I quite get where he is coming from. His concern was based on comments that Trasoff made in a recent Tucson Weekly article. In the article, Trasoff once again reiterated her belief that she is far better poised to beat Republican Fred Ronstadt than Farley is. Her exact words:
"Steve's a good progressive, but he can't win outside the ward," says Trasoff, who boasts that she won all six Tucson wards in her unsuccessful Corporation Commission race last year.
Both candidates are strong progressives. The argument between them this whole campaign has been: who is better able to bring the fight to Ronstadt after the primary? Just because Farley's camp may happen to disagree that Trasoff would be better able to win doesn't make her saying that negative. Interestingly, Farley also makes the electability argument. He says that he already beat Ronstadt in 2001, since Farley opposed the failed transportation referendum that Ronstadt pushed that year. As much as I admire Farley as an activist and organizer, it is this sort of tortured logic that makes me distrust his instincts. If Farley's supporters are concerned about the tone of the article, they'd be better off looking at Jim Nintzel's writing rather than Trasoff's quotes. For example, in one paragraph, Nintzel refers to Farley "hatching another of his farfetched ideas." Nintzel also pokes at both candidates for not coming up with an alternative for the garbage fee, which is a gripe he has with all of the Democrats. Trasoff has been able to attract support from across the Democratic party. Even Steve Emerine, who it seemed was only registered as a Democrat so that he could be put on the letterhead of "Democrats for Whatever Republican is Running", has signed on. She has gotten support from Congressman Raúl Grijalva, local progressive activists and organizations as well. Some of these folks are people who in any other year would crawl naked across broken glass for Farley, but they really want to be rid of Fred Ronstadt. It seems that Trasoff isn't the only one who thinks she is the better general election candidate. NB: That issue of the Weekly also included individual profiles of Farley and Trasoff. The main article quoted me as a Trasoff supporter as well.|W|P|112422241052420954|W|P|If This Be Mudslinging|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/16/2005 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Both are good candidates who could beat Fred R., but I favor Farley. It should be a good primary. People in Ward 6 be sure to vote.8/16/2005 09:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|Our organization, Las Adelitas have endorsed both candidates; they are both progressive and we feel we can work with them very well.

We have posted an unofficial poll regarding the election.. see for yourself (&vote!) (shameless plug)8/18/2005 10:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger leanordprice04203511|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/12/2005 09:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Late Wednesday night, three people were killed out on Ajo and Kinney roads here in Tucson. A sheriff's deputy named Timothy Graham was attempting to apprehend a mentally ill man named Aaron Swyers. A struggle ensued, and a cabbie that had just happened by named Dawud Abusida and attempted to help. Traffic along that stretch can be fast moving; freeway speeds are the norm. Somehow, all three men ended up in the path of an oncomming truck. All three died. What is interesting for me is with all of the people that must have driven by the scene, only one wanted to help the deputy, an Arab immigrant, a Palestinian at that. Heck, this "Good Samaritian" may have actually been from Samaria. Abusida had a master's degree, and recently became reconnected with his faith. He came over here with his family to make a better life. He had even recently started his own business. With all of the paranoia these days being directed at immigrants, and immigrants from that region in particular, I hope this serves as an example of the sacrifices many immigrants make to better their lives, as well as the lives of their fellow Americans. The Sheriff's department, even while dealing with their own tragic loss, is working on getting a posthumous citation for Abusida. Salam alaikum. UPDATE: The Star ran an article about a service for Abusida this morning.|W|P|112386419196730755|W|P|Dawud Isa Abusida|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/11/2005 12:32:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|They ran a bit on NPR yesterday on a new survey about Latino students and financial aid. Excelencia in Education, the group that commissioned the study, found that:

Latino students rely heavily on federal aid and on grants in particular, according to the report, given that they are more likely to be first-generation college students (49 percent) and to have relatively low family incomes. Nearly 80 percent of Latino undergraduates applied for aid and 63 percent of those received some form of aid in 2003-04. And while Latinos were more likely to receive federal aid (50 percent) than all groups except African American students (62 percent), Latinos received the lowest average federal awards. However, only 16 percent of Latinos received state aid, and 17 percent received aid from postsecondary institutions.

The group was unclear about the reason why Latinos recieved less in aid, although in the NPR interview, it was pointed out that many first generation students go to community and state colleges, where financial aid grants are less since tuition and costs are assumed to be less. In addition to this, with the emphasis on historically black colleges over the past decades, there is a bit more of an emphasis to giving African American students help to get into these institutions, this may account for the discrepency between Latino and African American students. I also have to wonder whether the bureaucracy involved in getting financial aid may be a big part of the problem too. I won't go into the ugly details of my experiences with the financial aid department at Pima Community College, suffice it to say, I am older than most students, a reasonably smart guy, a second generation college student who's mother worked in the U of A bureaucracy for years, and I had trouble with the aid paperwork and dealing with unhelpful aid office staff. The reasons why the staff seems so unhelpful and even hostile to students escapes me, since the college can only benefit from students being more financially secure. I can only imagine what an 18 year old whose family has never set foot on a campus must have to go through.|W|P|112378970127741665|W|P|Latino Students and Financial Aid|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/12/2005 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Kirk|W|P|It sounds like this deserves further investigation!

As far as staying more near to the house than most other students - I think you may be onto something.

Anyway Ted, raise your L up high!8/12/2005 10:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am not sure why they get less but at work I know that lower income people who are eligible for Pell Grants are more often selected for verification (checking to see if they deserve the aid or not) then people who are not eligible.8/16/2005 12:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|you're reasonably smart.... huh...8/10/2005 08:41:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I get a regular e-mail bulletin from Charlie Cook. Unfortunately, I can't remember how it was I managed to subscribe to it, and the posting on his website requires a password. Paul HackettHis latest one, which I recieved yesterday, is a rundown on his thoughts on the special election in Ohio, where Democrat Paul Hackett did surprisingly well. Heck, he almost won. He says that a variety of factors may have helped Hackett, including a series of ongoing scandals that have tarred most of the Republicans in Ohio, and the weakness of the Republican nominee, Jean Schmidt, but...
...while all of these factors contributed greatly to the surprisingly close outcome, it is clear that there is deeper significance to this race than some Republicans admit. There are those close to the White House who remain dismissive of the election's overall significance, but to ignore the warning signals this race has given off is to tempt the gods. Just as odd-year gubernatorial races often (though not always) foreshadow subsequent national results, special elections can be a harbinger for what the upcoming national election will hold. Republicans nationwide might take note that a message of "don't send someone to Congress who will be a rubber stamp for President Bush" resonated surprisingly well in a very GOP district.
He also warns Democrats not to read too much into the results though. But, there is a significant point here. Hackett was a far better nominee than we usually recruit in a district such as that one. What this means though, is that we should be working to find strong challengers so that when there is an opening we can exploit it. I'll cite two examples from here in Arizona. In 2000, House Speaker Jeff Groscost was looking to move up to the State Senate. It should have been an easy run, since the Mesa district he was running in was the most Republican in the state. A Democrat, Jay Blanchard, who was a former Marine and a college professor, filed to run against him. No one would have even given this guy a second look until the alt-fuel scandal hit. For those who don't remember, Groscost pushed through a bill that purportedly gave the purchasers of alternative fuel vehicles a tax break. Turned out that the break was poorly structured, and could have cost the state, by one estimate, half a billion dollars. The law was recinded, but not before it was found out that Groscost helped many of his associates profit from the law. All of this broke shortly before the election, and Blanchard was elected in what is considered to be the biggest upset in Arizona since Barry Goldwater beat US Senate Majority Leader Ernest McFarland. Although it is easy to say that Groscost was nearly unelectable in that year, it is helpful to remember that it was still a close race. The quality of the Democratic nominee made it possible to win. The contrapositive to that would be Jim Kolbe's 1996 race. In that year, you may remember, Kolbe was outed by The Advocate after years of denying that he was gay. People were a bit squeamish about his lying about his lifestyle for all of that time and he had never been particularly supportive of gay issues, so it may have been possible for a quality Democratic nominee to (while treading carefully) use this to his or her advantage. Instead, that year, we had a retiree named Mort Nelson (who has since passed away.) Nelson was a great guy and very knowledgeable about the issues, but was never regarded as a serious candidate. Kolbe won reelection, although former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy gave him a serious run in 1998. One wonders what would have happened if Volgy (or someone of his caliber) were the candidate in 1996. In our eight congressional districts, there are probably openings. Rep. J. D. Hayworth has already had to squelch a rumor that he is retiring. Jim Kolbe looks like he is going to have a heck of a primary, if he surives it, or if State Rep. Randy Graf wins, a strong Democrat could win. We already have a great nominee against Rep. Rick Renzi in State Rep. Jack Jackson Jr. Could be not a great year, but a good one.|W|P|112368920149633024|W|P|What Does Paul Hackett Mean?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/13/2005 02:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Jeff Groscost is baaack!

http://zelph.blogspot.com/2005/07/talk-about-chutzpah.html

I heard rumors that he may even run for elected office again.

While it's true that Groscost lost an election to a Democrat in Mesa following the Alt Fuel Scandal, Jay Blanchard was not able to hold the seat in the subsequent election. You have to be pretty bad to lose an election to a non-Mormon Dem in Mesa. You have to be ... Jeff Groscost. Let's hope he has the gall to run again.8/09/2005 11:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|For some reason, three advertisements got posted as comments to my last entry. I have deleted them. They were all posted anonymously. I like y'all being able to do that, since it seems to maximize the number of you out there that can post. I hope I can continue to do this. I can easily delete the ads, but it's still a bit of a bother. These guys are ruining the internet for everyone.|W|P|112365619924307092|W|P|Author's Note|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/10/2005 02:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Thane Eichenauer|W|P|If the G-men would only stop spending money on governing Iraq and imprisoning drug users I am sure we would all have alot more money, energy and time left over to resolve the spam issue.

Not that they are likely to ask voters if we consent to continuing the Iraq Occupation.8/10/2005 03:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|that would kind of ruin that whole "Nothing but a focus group" mentality if the Bushes suddenly started listening to the people who pay their salaries.8/10/2005 07:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Thane, I think you are the first Objectivist to post here. I make fun of y'all once in a while, but come by anyway. I welcome your comments.8/10/2005 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|See Ted, you must be doing something right if people are trying to spam your website.8/09/2005 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I have resisted the urge to say anything on here about my brother's troubles. Unfortunately, the Arizona Republic decided to run a smart alecky piece about them. Not only was it expressly an off the record conversation between my brother and the reporter, Mr. Sherwood (Sherwood saying "this is off the record" I guess is equivocation of some sort), but he left out some facts that my brother brought up with him. And, that wasn't even the worst part. They put MY name in there. Mr. Sherwood has never met me. Far as I can tell, he has no reason to think I even exist. He's got absolutely no decent reason to screw up the first name. There are only two reasons he could have messed it up. One, he could be totally incompetent. Two, he could have been so eager to make his smart alecky points that he didn't care enough to check basic facts. Either way, it calls his journalism into question. My brother has been up there for three years, and this guy has written about him exactly three times. Twice to say that Tom can't play baseball, and this. So, what is the point in taking a stand and fighting for principle if the so-called professional journalists don't want to tell anyone about it?|W|P|112360473344767661|W|P|Reserving Comment...NOT.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/09/2005 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Nothing is ever "off the record" with a reporter.8/09/2005 11:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Have to agree...Reporters all love getting juicy bits. If it is juicy enough, they will publish.8/09/2005 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Tom knows the rule about "off the record" now.8/09/2005 01:28:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|What happened? I don't know your last name...8/09/2005 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Exactly--nothing is ever "off the record"!8/09/2005 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/09/2005 04:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/09/2005 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/09/2005 08:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|I'd be more offended about the "Ted can't play baseball" (ooops! I mean Tom) comment. What the heck does that have to do with politics?8/10/2005 12:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|well live and learn.8/09/2005 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In my entry entitled "Johnny's Last Christmas," I neglected to include the best speech ever at a YDA convention. Since I no longer will be able to go to conventions (unless I am very pathetic...), here it is. We met in Charleston, West Virginia in 1995. We had a female president then, Jody Buckley, and it had been exactly ten years since we had the first female president, Marie Prezioso. Prezioso was from West Virginia so someone arranged for a reunion of her executive board. Her board, by the way, included Terry Goddard, although he was unable to make it. A guy from New York named Doug Gordon was the only one who happened to be on both boards. So he was assigned to introduce Marie Prezioso. I'll try to write this, but I think it is best if you hear it with an Arnold Horseshack style accent:
I have a button here, it says New Yorkers for Prezioso. I made it myself. I was the only one in the New York delegation to support Marie. I was a New Yorker for Prezioso, I am a New Yorker for Prezioso, and, Marie, I will always be a New Yorker for Prezioso.
I can't remember the rest of it, but it was suitable cheesy. As he went on, a delegate from Texas who knew him for years was heckling him. He just drove right through it, the way a halftrack would shove aside a Yugo with no effect on its speed. At the time, I was embarassed for the guy, but I think there is something I can admire about it.|W|P|112359875068799249|W|P|Quote that I Forgot|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/06/2005 07:11:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We managed to get Brittany Farbo elected the treasurer of the GLBT caucus of the Young Democrats of America. This was after she lost elections to be the chair and seceretary of the group. It was all pretty ridiculous, actually. She has done work for EMILY's List and works for a pretty snazzy consulting firm in DC now. Some folks in the room told her that they would have voted for her if they used a secret ballot. By the way, these guys were the ones cheering for Gavin Newsom the night before when he said we've got to be unafraid to stand up for what we believe in. It became obvious that the "LBT" in the name of the caucus was going totally unrepresented in the newly elected officers. So, Brittany did what any good candidate does at these events: she guilt tripped them. Hey, whatever works. The room was nearly entirely men; there were less than half a dozen women. In the back of my mind, I gotta wonder if her lack of success on the early ballots was due to sexism. I mean, Brittany was an incredibly well qualified candidate, and she lost BIG in her first race. We assume that because they are gay, that maybe they can't be sexist. I have to say though, the person who was most supportive of Brittany, and helped guilt trip the delegates, was a gay man from San Francisco. From my experience with the minority caucus, I have a feeling that Brittany will end up running the caucus anyhow when the talkers get bored after a couple of months. The thing that has always struck me about YDA is that the candidates seem to be able to raise tens of thousands of dollars for their candidacies, but can't seem to deliver for the organization. YDA has gotten better about being able to raise money. What has bothered most of us is that one of the candidates running, Alex De Ocampo, has raised at least $40,000 for his campaign (and that doesn't inlcude the money spent by the other candidates on his "slate"). In the mean time, the host committee, run by other folks from his state who are his presumably friends, needed to be bailed out by the YDA. Priorities...sheesh. That host committee, by the way, raised less money on their own for this convention than Raúl Grijalva did by himself for our convention in Tucson in 2001 (By the way, he wasn't even a congressman yet). Yeah, I know that the California Young Democrats don't have access to big dollar sources like, I dunno, Hollywood or the high tech industry. Not my job to worry about it anymore though.|W|P|112333951022045390|W|P|YDA Convention, Thursday|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/08/2005 12:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|yeah you no longer care because you are middle aged now. Does this mean we are going to be seeing less of you. :O8/05/2005 03:36:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I dunno how the heck I forgot about Rep. Barney Frank's speech. The guy was funny and insightful as usual. One good line:
People are worried about the liberal influence at Harvard. George Bush is proof that you can go to Harvard and Yale and emerge totally unaffected.
I got to drive him around at the convention in Tucson in 2001. The guy is a straight (pardon the word) shooter. He knows exactly what he believes. He's a bit more liberal than I am, but God bless him.|W|P|112328198795178971|W|P|I'm Frank|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/05/2005 10:55:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Three people spoke at the YDA convention yesterday. Well, more spoke, but they tended to be YDA officers, and why the heck would any of you care about that? Rep. Nancy Pelosi spoke first. She's good. The speech was just a run down of what the has been doing to younger folks. She also had good words for Paul Hackett, the man who barely lost a race for congress in Ohio last week. Then came Gov. Richardson. This gave me a chance to hang out with Jennifer Kozlowski, my fellow Polish-Mexican who serves on Richardson's staff. Richardson's speech had a self mocking tone, feigning an "end" to the speech around four times. His best line:
People ask me if I took steroids when I played baseball. I say no, because I didn't want to grow up to be governor of California.
The person that got the most rousing response was Mayor Gavin Newsom. His speech was ballsy. He talked about how his attempt to allow gay marriage was his way of taking fights directly to the conservatives and he is tired of us running the 90 yard dash. I think everyone in that room walked out wanting the guy to run for...something. With his calls for a fearless liberalism, one wonders why he still maintains a membership in the DLC. See you soon!|W|P|112326513473063594|W|P|Speakers, and They Got Extra Quads|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/06/2005 02:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I used Gavin Newsom to get the stupid lame ass Civil Unions striken from the YDA platform. We take a stand for something and stick to it.8/03/2005 01:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Don Goldwater is proof that glibness and articulateness does not run in families. Sorry, Don, I think a career in public speechmaking is not for you. I have to admit that I didn't see his speech in person, I only saw bits and heard bits on the news. He's got the stage presence of a loaf of sourdough bread. His face seemed to be totally expressionless as a character on a Ted DeGrazia refrigerator magnet. Think, I dunno, Ben Stein. He's got the politics and delivery of Stein, without the humor and charisma. And think about it, the radio and TV probably only carried the exciting parts. Mr. Goldwater took Governor Napolitano to task for not enforcing, in his view, the provisions of last year's proposition 200. Remember last year when the entire Republican establishment was agianst 200 because it was intollerant and racist? I guess that's all over, assuming that they were ever serious about being against it in the first place.|W|P|112310231720532903|W|P|-yawn- Don Goldwater -zzz-|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/04/2005 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Sourdough rises all by itself, and even grows in the dark. But sourdough growth itself is definitely a perpetual existance which, from your comments, I wonder how well that compares to Don Goldwater's future political career.

Maybe someone will come clean out the fridge and dispose of it because it's moldy.8/05/2005 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|mmm... I love sourdough....8/02/2005 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was looking over my previous posts to see if any of you are writing replies. None of you did. But I looked back at my post about George Weah. So, I'm thinking, this guy has had his house torched and members of his family attacked, but that still doesn't disuade him from running for office. But, the Republicans are claiming that they can't recruit a candidate for Governor of Arizona because of the low salary. So says Nathan Sproul, a "Republican Strategist." I guess that's what they call what he does these days. Anyway, he said in a recent arictle in the Republic:

"I think it clearly has kept some Republicans from running," GOP strategist Nathan Sproul said. "No question about it. We exclude an entire population of people who would make excellent governors, simply because the salary is too low."

For those of you keeping track, the Governor makes $95,000. Not exactly on the high-end, but decent money in a state where the median income is $47,219. She turned down a raise of $65,000 earlier this year. Think about that for a minute: $65,000. The raise itself would have been more than the average family makes. This comes at a time when the state budget is being trimmed, nay, chopped. Let me give you an example of what this means. I work in adult education. One of my bosses goes to a conference every year up in Flagstaff. Last year, there were people from about seventy programs there; this year there were a bit more than thirty. This is mostly due to state budget cuts. So, it was right that the governor not take a pay hike when we can't meet the needs of our poorest citizens. To some extent, I agree with arguments that a growing state like ours should have a better paid chief executive. But the argument that somehow qualified people aren't running because of the salary is ridiculous, and frankly insulting to the working people of this state. The stat that I quoted above is "median income." Not mean, but median. That means somewhere around half the people in the state are living on less than $47,219. But, we can't find a decent Republican who wants to make less than six figures? Heck, Matt Salmon was happy to run for Republican Party Chairman so he wouldn't have to run for Governor, and it doesn't pay a salary at all. Which brings us to the real reason: it has nothing to do with the salary, but the fact that polls show Napolitano to be a very strong candidate, and no one wants to be the one to lose to her. Say, you would think that if they are so concerned about the Governor's salary and being able to attract qualified people, they would finally do something about the low pay of thousands of our other state employees? Nah.|W|P|112300084718231167|W|P|Repubicans Whining Again (Yeah, Nothing New)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/02/2005 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|God forbid a candidate come from the middle class. A peasant. How awful!

Is Arizona running out of rich people full of hubris, I mean, leadership?8/02/2005 09:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|I wonder what kind of Republican would run for governor just because they needed the money?

Sounds kinda funny to me.

I'd say something a little more clever but I just got off a 13-hour shift and I left my brain back at work in my locker. Don't you just hate that?8/03/2005 11:11:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Todd from north of the Gila|W|P|No CEO wants to step away from the feeding trough long enough to be governor - so they can rig the government so that more of their CEO buddies can get more "privatized" pork from the state government.

Greed apparently does have its limits. I love how Janet rejecting a raise is suddenly a bad thing. I'm sure if she accepted it, they'd be hammering her as well.8/04/2005 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You mean people actually run for office with the only intention of wanting to be a greedy bastard? I am just shocked! I never thought of the 90K pay raise I would have gotten had I beaten JD! (okay maybe a few times)8/02/2005 06:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Being that I am an old man, I am "aging out" of the Young Democrats of America. This week's convention in San Francisco will be my last. My first convention was in Merrillville, Indiana in 1993. I have not attended all the meetings since, but I have only missed one convention in that time. Here is a summary of those conventions:
  • "Get some balls, Dennis!"
  • "Mr. Chairman, this is bulls***, I'm a diabetic and...hey..."
  • "Would everyone please....shut...the...hell...up...."
  • "Sit down, a**hole!"
  • "We would like to point out that William O. Douglas was actually from Washington."
  • "You know, Alice Cooper was actually from Detroit."
  • "Isn't one of your senators that Dennis D'Amato guy?"
  • "Is that Evan Mecham still governor there?"
  • "We are cutting off our hands to spite our face."
  • "There is only one language at this convention, we only speak English here."
  • "La Partida Democrata en Tejas respetan diversidad."
  • "Gracias a todos mis amigos."
  • "The Young Democrats of Arkansas change their votes to Scott Hutchings because we found out his opponent cut a deal with Mike Sexton."
  • "That's okay, none of us are involved in our state organizations."
  • "Do they have a hotel in Little Rock? I mean, we have hotels in DC."
  • "We've got diversity; he's from Chicago, I'm from Washington, and Victor is from Queens."
  • "I'm glad you told that story, otherwise I wouldn't have known you were Hispanic."
  • "You know, I control four votes on that committee."
  • "Presidential agent, does that mean he gets a cut of the President's 'action'?"
  • "Mr. Chairman, my delegation will not be forced to stand."
  • "This all started as a joke, a rebellion."
  • "One man has represented the spirit of rebellion in this organization, and that is Ted Prezelski."
I would write long explanations for these, but there isn't much point, eh? If possible, I'll try to write updates from out there. I'm an old man not campaigning for anything or anyone, so I'll have time. PS - I added a link to a blog called ZelphBlog. It hasn't been updated in a while, but a couple of the posts are interesting, such as this one about Rep. Krysten Sinema. Or, the link to the interview where Sen. Karen Johnson calls Pres. Bush a Trotskyite. Mr. Zelph (I think it's a guy...) will start posting on Desert Rat Democrat.|W|P|112299018723426804|W|P|Johnny's Last Chistmas|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/03/2005 11:06:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Todd from north of the Gila|W|P|I think I'm responsible for one of those quotes, and was a witness to many others.

I went to the YDAz convention trip kickoff last night, and someone gave me a nametag and called me a "dignitary". I believe that means just inherited the mantle of "oldest YD".8/04/2005 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well Ted...this is also the last chance you have to get a, what is the phrase? Oh yeah A Nice Piece of Blank. :P And life with FUFU BERRY! is good.8/01/2005 04:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the two greatest soccer players never to reach the World Cup (the other being Northern Ireland's George Best), George Manneh Oppong Ousman Weah, has put his name in to run for the presidency of Liberia. This man has long been a hero of mine. Here in the US, our sports stars get testy just because someone points a camera at them or their per diem checks come five minutes late. This guy actually had his house burned down and members of his family assaulted because his popularity and outspokenness made him a threat to the government. Despite this, he still managed his country's national team, because, as he said, it gave "a suffering people joy." Given the threats to him and his family, I think no one would have blamed him if he abandoned his native country. He, however, believed that a "man who burns the bridge to his past is lost." He continued to return to his country, even though his family lived in New York for safety reasons. His "stardom" off of the field has been recognized for years. He has been praised by no less than Nelson Mandela for his activities, and UNICEF appointed him a goodwill ambassador working on the issues of child soldiers and HIV/AIDS. He also was envolved in negotiating a cease fire between rebel factions in his home country. Weah played for a dozen teams over his career, and won numerous awards, even winning the ESPN Arthur Ashe award. ESPN hardly ever recognizes sports achievements by non-Americans (the ESPN 100 didn't include Pelé), so there is a some knowledge even among the normally jingoistic American sports media that this guy is special. He already has a campaign site up, but there will not be anything on there for another couple of weeks. PS - Yes, this is the second post in the row where I put a picture of a soccer player up. But, dude, it's King George!|W|P|112289739321258569|W|P|Weah to Run for Liberian Presidency|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/02/2005 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tasha|W|P|I think this is your first soccer player post I enjoyed. :) Keep up the good work!9/07/2005 11:14:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Ezekiel B. Freeman|W|P|Mr George Weah will be a the best President ever in the history of Liberia. He has the commitment,the nationalism, the patriotism/ the love for his people and of his people.He has the passion and determination imbued with the sense of nation building for Liberia and Liberians. He is the best thing that has ever happen to liberia in 158years of our existence. Let me be proven wrong.9/07/2005 11:21:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Give George the chance, He took himself from rags to riches in 15 years with all the trillions of odds with no lives lost, without people being murdered,and raped.he can do the same for liberia.