10/31/2005 10:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In all of my posting about the city council race, and with the other news last week, I missed the passing of Representative Edward Ross Roybal. Roybal was probably the most important political leader in the Hispanic community durring the 1950's and 60's. His activities didn't attract the attention that the Dr. King's civil rights movement did, but nonetheless, his stamp can be seen everywhere. He worked quietly on behalf of not only the Mexican-American community, but civil rights in general. One of his earliest activities was speaking out against the Japanese internment. He also worked on behalf of the marielitos at a time when few Mexican-American leaders found any common cause with cubanos. He left congress in 1992, just in time to see a class of new freshmen congressmen that included more hispanics than at any time in history. That class included his daughter, Lucille Roybal-Allard. Valle en paz, hermano. The Library of Congress has an excellent biography on their page.|W|P|113082318742517053|W|P|Ed Roybal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/01/2005 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|He was a great man, no question. I don't think a comparison to Dr. King is accurate though.

He was a political leader, which is different from an inspirational leader. In that regard, I would consider Cesar Chavez as far more of an inspirational leader (I'm not even hispanic, but one of my first memories as a kid was not eating grapes to support Chavez in his boycott of grapes.)11/01/2005 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I didn't mean to caompare him with Dr. King, I was just noting that the Aftican American civil rights movement attracted a lot more attention, for all sorts of reasons.

And yes, Ceasar Chavez was an incredibly inspirational leader, and eclipsed Roybal in the 60's and 70's. However, it is also important to note that Roybal built a foundation on which the gains of Chavez, Corky Gonzales and others were able to build.10/31/2005 08:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I wrote a bit about the hay that Karin Uhlich is trying to make over Kathleen Dunbar's threats to kill a deal with the Amphitheater school district. Interestingly, Dunbar has now retained an attorney and has threatened to sue. Yes, that's right, she's threatened to sue. Who does she want to sue? With appologies to the Jerky Boys: "Sue you, sue everyone!" Kathleen Dunbar's attorney has contacted Karin Uhlich, the Democratic Party, the Amphitheater School District, Assistant Amphi Superintendent Todd Yaeger, and even one retired Amphi Teacher, and stated that she intedns to sue them apparently because trying to publicize the Amphi incident is actionable. Particularly disturbing is Dunbar's calling the teacher, a woman named Alison Newman. Dunbar called Newman at 7:30 one morning to demand that she retract an anti-Dunbar letter that was sent to educators. She threatened Newman with a lawsuit if she didn't do so. Even if Newman was doing this on behalf of the Karin Uhlich campaign, this is still out of bounds. This is an elected official threatening a private citizen over expressing an opinion contrary to hers. It demonstrates a lack of a basic respect for democracy. Dunbar's lawyer, Stephen Gonzales, also sent an e-mail to the Democratic Party threatening them with action if supporters of the party continue to write letters to the editor critical of Dunbar's involvement with the Amphi situation. Most chillingly:
Should you fail to do so, your committee and ALL persons and organizations involved in this defamation will be subject to the same legal action which will be brought against Mr. Jaeger and the Amphi school District.
So, in other words, a party activist or even just a regular citizen will be sued if they merely write a letter to the editor. As strange as this is, it isn't totally unprecedented in a city election. Back in 2003, the party ran an ad critical of Mayor Bob Walkup and the Republican council candidates. Shortly after the ad first aired, the party and several news outlets recieved a letter claiming the ad was illegal. Unfortunately, the party caved, mostly prompted by the mayoral nominee. That letter wasn't sent by a lawyer, but by a Republican party official. The idea though was to intimidate the candidates into not campaigning. Having a lawyer threaten to sue campaign volunteers is this cubed. It is intended to dissuade regular citizens from becoming involved with campaigns and maybe dissuade them from civic life in general.|W|P|113077508931903265|W|P|Republicans Doing Their Part to Show What a Frivolous Lawsuit Is|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/01/2005 10:11:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Stop posting Dunbar's picture, it scares me!!!!11/01/2005 10:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|But, if I don't, how will people understand how scary she is.

You know, it's like St. Thomas having to feel the wounds...or something.11/01/2005 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Is Dunbar from Florida? Those people seem to be wacky when it comes to electioneering.

I get my information in this from Dave Barry so it might not be the best source...11/01/2005 12:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|This is wonderful! It's about the stupidest, least mediagenic move Dunbar could have made. It not only makes her look exceedingly guilty, but also beligerent and ineffectual. The standards for defaming a public official are so high as to be insurmountable, so there is no hope of any lawyer who actually files such a lawsuit not drawing sanctions. What the hell these people are thinking is a mystery, but if anything rocks the power of incumbency it will be this. Good job digging this up. What or who were your sources BTW?11/01/2005 12:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Oh, and I love to see the whole email by Gonzales if you have it.11/01/2005 02:52:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I don't like the phrase "Frivolous Lawsuit." It suggests that the whole thing is a nuisance but not a big deal. Threatening someone with a lawsuit is exactly that: a THREAT. It is betting that someone will stop doing something that they have the right to do, because they can't afford the cost of defending their right to do it. In that context, I am most troubled by her calling the retired teacher at 7:30 in the morning.10/30/2005 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ernesto Portillo Jr.'s column last Thursday was about the unwillingness of councilmembers Kathleen Dunbar and Fred Ronstadt to appear at many campaign fora that have been scheduled by community organizations. One little item in the column got me thinking. One of the people that was organizing the West Side forum that Neto attended was Lillian Lopez-Grant. Lopez-Grant is a long time community organizer and a Republican. She is the only Hispanic Republican with any actual juice in the local Hispanic community. You'd think that such a person would be courted heavily by Kathleen Dunbar. Pull any significant number of Hispanic voters away from the Democratic candidate, and the race would be over. Once again, this sort of logic escapes Dunbar.
"She said there are no votes for her here. She said the forum was a setup and she didn't like the format," said Lopez-Grant, who reserved the $75 room and talked to Dunbar.
Then, the article went on to say that Dunbar was "suprised" that Lillian said that. Why is she suprised? Is it not true? Or are you just miffed that she said it in public? Yes, I'll be the first to admit, there are probably not a lot of West Side votes for Dunbar. But blowing off a major Republican activist in town? She's got to overcome an almost two to one registration advantage. Not only can she not afford to tick off Republicans, but she needs a good "in" to get Democratic votes as well. Think about this: you are a Democrat who may not know much about the candidates, but your neighbor Lillian introduces you to Councilmamber Dunbar, wouldn't that mean something? Both Ronstadt and Dunbar have been shy about any venue that they don't have control over. Earlier this year, Dunbar decided to boycott the Republican-friendly John C. Scott show. Apparently this was because Scott featured some individuals critical of Dunbar's record. She has since re-appeared on the show. This episode is most disturbing because it reveals that these two council members, who have been guiding the agenda for the last couple of years, really have no interest in gaining the support of people on the West Side. The five West side neighborhoods that sponsored the forum are the ones most effected by the Rio Nuevo project and the changes to the I-10 corridor. One, Barrio Hollywood, was flooded after neglected sewerlines broke a while ago. These are all city issues involving millions of dollars in tax revenue. If Dunbar doesn't think she needs to visit with them because there are "no votes" there, it should chill all of us who live in neighborhoods that don't vote Republican.|W|P|113068102734786314|W|P|Making Friends|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/31/2005 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|Actually, the sewers are a County responsibility.10/31/2005 08:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Bozo.10/31/2005 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I second Ted's comment....10/29/2005 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I realized that I haven't written anything about Fred Ronstadt in a while. Then I realized that I haven't had anything to write about him in a while. Is he still running? Anyone hear? I hope he's doing okay.|W|P|113065213306509583|W|P|Cry Like a Rainstorm|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/29/2005 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|John McCain took a trip to our lovely burg yesterday to endorse Kathleen Dunbar. A Republican endorses a Republican, huge news. Unfortunately for Dunbar, the press that showed up was obsessed with Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby's indictment. Dunbar was left to stand behind McCain and to try not to get confused with the flagpole. Well, one person in the audience had a question that had nothing to do with beltway politics. She asked how McCain, the most prominent proponent of campaign finance reform, could endorse a person who has spurned participation in Tucson's campaign finance system. McCain's popularity among Democrats nationally can be traced to his fierce advocacy of campaign finance reform. It is this popularity that led Dunbar to bring him out for an endorsement in the first place, since she's got to surmount a Republican registration deficit in the city. She hasn't had any high profile press conferences with Jon Kyl, after all. All McCain could do was say something to the effect of: well, we don't agree on everything. Later, Dunbar was overheard telling Star reporter C. J. Karamargin that she didn't actually invite McCain. Yeah, okay.|W|P|113060571656574686|W|P|I Endorse Her, Sort Of|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/31/2005 01:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Maybe she'll sue McCain, too?10/28/2005 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted for his role in the "outing" of Valerie Plame. This gives me a chance to ask a question that has been bugging me for a while. What sort of middle-aged man still calls himself "Scooter"?|W|P|113051913615649939|W|P|Breaking News|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/28/2005 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|My money says that he will obtain a new and perhaps more age-appropriate nickname when he goes to prison.10/28/2005 06:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|We all know middle aged and even elderly Mexican-American men who retain childhood nicknames like "Chepe" and "Kiko." This always seems endearing and even cool.
However, for some reason, it always seems smarmy when middle aged Anglo Republican men retain their nicknames. Is this because it is a reminder of their fraternity pasts?10/28/2005 11:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Or maybe because their nicknames are so lame.10/29/2005 07:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I found out yesterday that his first name is actually Irving. I will no longer blame him for wanting to be called "Scooter."10/30/2005 07:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ving would be a good nickname.10/31/2005 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I think Scooter is a very appropriate nickname for prison....10/27/2005 10:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The latest hoo-hah in our city council race here is over a mailer that Karin Uhlich has sent detailing Kathleen Dunbar's spiking a deal between the Amphitheater School District and the Kemmerly Companies, a local developer that later merged with a national company. The school district, the in-city portion of which is nearly entirely in Dunbar's Ward 3, managed to negotiate a $1200 per unit impact fee from the company for a development that they wanted to build. According to the district, this would have been enough to compensate for the "capacity deficiency" at local schools. You'd think that this sort of thing would be exactly what a Republican would want: a private company freely negotiating a deal with a public entity, and no law from above telling them to do it, right? You'd be wrong. Councilmember Dunbar intervened. She called the developer and said that she would fight the proposal if the impact fees were agreed to. The school district got word from the developer that they were calling the deal off. This would probably all be an inside story that no one would know about, except that Todd Jaeger, the general counsel for Amphi school district (and a Republican), decided to bring it up at a council meeting, May 10, 2004:
They said quite candidly that they were withdrawing from the agreememnt because Ms. Dunbar had told them that if they entered into an agreement she would see to it that this development was voted down. I had my own conversation with Ms. Dunbar on or about 4/21 and she told me in fact she would fight us on this project. I cannot understand for the life of me why she would oppose a voluntary agreement that would benefit students at 2 Title I schools.
So, why would Dunbar be opposed to such a thing? She was at the council meeting where Jaeger made the allegations, but provided no adequate explanation for her actions. Later, Dunbar told people that she did not want to set a "precedent." A precedent of public-private partnerships to benefit students and families? How awful! You'd think that the developers would be happy with such an agreement, the school district and the company entered into this agreement without a single county statute or state regulation forcing them to. The only precedent that would have been set was that a developer would have admitted that development has a cost that the public bears. This would run counter to the line from SAHBA, who have named Dunbar their "Public Official of the Year," that development is a net plus for everyone involved. Interestingly, three members of the Kimmerly family have maxed out to Dunbar's campaign. This makes me wonder if this was a weird way Kimmerly to get out of the agreement by unleashing her, who knows? It's all very bizarre. By the way, despite voting against impact fees and her actions here, she now claims that she is for impact fees. She's had a similar death-bed conversion on the methamphetamine issue. Geez, a few more weeks of this, maybe her views will so resemble Uhlich's that there will be no need to elect Karin at all. This gets back to Karin Uhlich's campaign mailings about this. These have infuriated Dunbar, she said that the allegations are "a bunch of crap." Such language! Maybe the Citizen will call her "shrill." Given that this is something that was discussed at at least one public meeting and documented in numerous e-mails, it is hard for her to deny that it actually occurred. Dunbar has said she is angry that Uhlich is using her public statements against her. Yes, the public words of a public official are now off limits. From now on, Uhlich is only allowed to talk about how much Dunbar has done for puppies. NB- Today's Weekly has an item in the Skinny detailing the fiscal impact of the resistance of people like Dunbar, Ronstadt and SAHBA to impact fees.|W|P|113043568211265590|W|P|Once Again, It's Money Over People|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/28/2005 12:12:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Helen Lovejoy|W|P|This is just too much! hold on, I have to go gag.

Won't somebody please think about the children!10/28/2005 03:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I do love to see the Queen of SAHBA twisting in the wind over this one. She can't deny it or spin it, her only option to be pissy about it.10/26/2005 06:44:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Evidently, Jan Smith-Florez announced for governor yesterday. Did anyone notice? I heard a bit about it on NPR this morning. I saw nothing about it in this morning's Arizona Republic. I checked the Star and I found out why. Evidently, Smith-Florez announced at a semi-private confab of Republicans at a restaurant in Phoenix. An odd place to announce one's candidacy to be sure. I've already talked to one Republican activist who believes that Smith-Florez will have massive support in the Hispanic community. This is moronic on a couple of different levels. For one, the attraction of Hispanics to the Democratic party is not due entirely to the fact that they are more likely to run a Hispanic candidate. The contrapositive is probably more likely the case: Democrats are more likely to run a Hispanic candidate because more Hispanics happen to be Democrats. There is a tendency at lower levels, in primaries where people have less information about the candidates, that there are cases of Hispanics voting for Hispanics because they are Hispanic. This is more because when you don't have much information, you go with what you are familiar with. Heck, in a low profile race, I imagine that a familiar name like "Jones" or "Garcia" would defeat "Czolgosz" in just about any area of the state, regardless of ethnic makeup. In a higher profile general election, things like party ID and awareness of the candidates would trump this tendency. Smith-Florez is married to a Hispanic, that's why she has the surname, so some Hispanic voters may give her a second look. I'm sure that this gave her a foot in the door to get elected in Hispanic majority Santa Cruz County (some unpopular prosecutorial decisions by incumbent José Machado helped too.) The thing that I wonder about is whether or not she even makes it to a general election. The bizarre way that the announcement was handled makes me wonder if she has what it takes to run a decent statewide campaign. Not only that, what are the chances that she can be nominated? Jaime Molera, also a Nogales resident, got spanked in his state wide primary by over 30,000 votes after what some felt was a subtle use of his race by Tom Horne. Joe Sweeney, who could never be seen as either a serious congressman or a serious nominee by any sane human being, has managed to win two primaries in his dozen or so races, both were against Hispanics, Lou Muñoz and Al Rodriguez. One has to wonder if the Republican party is ready to nominate anyone who is even close to being a Hispanic. The other sort-of announcement at this sort-of-private event was that Randy Pullen announced that he isn't running. Did anyone know that he was interested? I remember way back when Paul Johnson first announced that he was running for Governor, and Terry Goddard was making a second try for it, a Republican muckety muck told me "You Democrats seem to think that just because you can be elected Mayor of Phoenix that you can run for Governor..." Well, Pullen couldn't even be elected Mayor of Phoenix, could he? I don't know enough about what went on at this meeting to know whether the current spat between Mary Peters and Sen. John Greene was brought up, or even alluded to. But this has been entertaining. For those of you who haven't been following this, Greene is claiming that Peters does not meet the residency requirements. Greene has a couple of points in his favor, she signed a form stating that she was not a resident of Arizona, and has voted in Virginia in the last two elections. Someone could correct me on this, but haven't the courts in the past ruled that your residency is where ever you say it is? Also, I wonder if they would be willing to strike a candidate from the ballot, or if they will say that she can run and defer any sort of decision on her eligibility to serve in the office until the day she may or may not win the election. There would be a nice constitutional crisis. In Tucson, we have had Council candidates struck from the ballot because of residency requirements. But the rules in Tucson are very restrictive and quite explicit. I don't think the state rules are given some of the district shopping some candidates have been able to do. It seems as though the state residency rules disuade candidates from running rather than actually telling them not to. One more thing (is this too long? naw.): I've heard some reporters refer to Peters as the "frontrunner." Where is this coming from? Anyone have any actual polling numbers to back this up? I would imagine that Don Goldwater, because of the name, would be out in front since nobody besides Republican insiders knows who the heck these people are. Chip Scutari refered to her as the "potential" frontrunner. Heck, I'm a potential frontrunner. And that's just silly. She can't be much a frontrunner if she can't run... NB: Greene and Peters have been waging a low scale war on Espresso Pundit. It's entertaining for us schadenfraude addicted Democrats. I still want a Greg Patterson v Daniel Patterson knock-down-drag-out, but this will do for now.|W|P|113038273358966454|W|P|Plus One, Minus One|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/26/2005 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Not that anyone cares but I think I may be getting Teresa Ottsen to drop out. She said she was suprised at how much traveling she had to do. It also apparently cost her one job.

Interestingly enough Tom Horne has been her main helper. Wonder what that means?10/27/2005 08:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|When you say "help," what do you mean? Is he just being friendly or is he actually giving her real assistance. It would be bizarre for Horne to be supporting her.

Unless, of course, he's gone totally off the rails.10/27/2005 11:47:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|What? Someone from Maricopa County was unaware of how vast the State of Arizona really is? I am shocked. Shocked!10/27/2005 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well she invited me to a chili cook off she had with him, and he apparently has been giving her advice.

And Arizona is more then just Maricopa County and that little town they had some shootings at? You MUST be kidding me. :D12/02/2005 12:49:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|President Bush picked up a large percentage of Hispanic votes in 2004 in Arizona and lets not forget that almost 50% of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200. Jan Smith Florez is married to a Hispanic, she carries the name and she is fluent in Spanish. As far as I can tell she is the only candidate that will force Napolitano to spend her tax-funded campaign money on getting what she considers her "base" to vote for her on election day. Furthermore, Jan Smith Florez is a conservative and strong on securing the border. Of all the Republican contenders I am sure Judge Florez is the only one that Napolitano fears running against.10/25/2005 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
“Are you going to stand up?”

“No.”

“Well, by God, I’m going to have you arrested.”

“You may do that.”

|W|P|113024794244086064|W|P|Rosa Parks, 1913-2005|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/25/2005 10:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Even tho I think the OutKast thing got a little tedious and bloated in the media, it takes nothing away from Rosa Parks. She her contemporaries that were involved in the civil rights movement helped move humanity a little further along the road, and then some.10/23/2005 08:38:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Have you ever seen the cereal commercial where a supervisor tries to fire an employee, but the employee won't leave because he can't hear over the crunch of his cereal? Maybe David Burnell Smith has a similar difficulty. You'd think so since, despite being ordered to vacate office on October 4th, he is still there. Smith has had 14 days to file an appeal of the decision, and failed to do so (although, in an odd move, Smith claims that he did file). Attorney General Terry Goddard is looking to take further action. This may include asking the Seceretary of State to declare a vacancy. What happens if Seceretary Jan Brewer refuses? What happens if the vacancy is declared and an appointed legislator tries to take office while Smith still thinks it is his? What happens if the house speaker refuses to accept that there is a vacancy? Smith's contention is that a legislator can only be thrown out by recall, failure to win re-election or impeachment. Smith has failed to look at recent history. Corporation Commissioner Tony West* was thrown out of office in 1999 for what may be considered a minor infraction: it turned out that he held a securities licence, making him inelligible for the office. This sort of violation basically meant that West was never legally elected to the office in the first place. It could be said that something similar is going on here. Smith is aruguing that removal from office is limited to only a small list of rather extreme circumstances. In 1948, an Arizona attorney general was removed from office in a decision called DeConcini v Sullivan. I wasn't able to find out anything about that case, but I found it cited, along with two other cases, in an opinion regarding a situation in Oklahoma in 1983. These cases all seem to come to the same conclusion about when an office holder can be removed:
In State v. Musto, 454 A.2d 449 (N.J. Super. L.1982), the Court held that the office of a state senator became vacant automatically upon his conviction of felony crimes under a forfeiture of public office statute. The Senator argued that the exclusive method by which he could be removed from office was through expulsion by a two-thirds vote of the Senate under the New Jersey Constitution. In rejecting that argument the Court said:

"[I]t is illogical to assume that expulsion or impeachment, provided by our Constitution, were intended by the framers of that document to be the exclusive methods for the removal of public officers. They serve as an added safeguard to the public against those officers who may be so powerful as to effectively avoid prosecution for wrongdoing. They could never have been intended to provide a shield for the corrupt official to prevent his removal by other means...." 454 A.2d at 472.

See also, Errichetti v. Merlino, 457 A.2d 476 (N.J. Super. L. 1982); State ex rel. DeConcini v. Sullivan, 188 P.2d 592 (Ariz. 1948).

The 14 day deadline to file an appeal was put into place to prevent an office holder from staying in office for months or even years by legal maneuvering. This is probably Smith's strategy in this case. If he can drag this out until primary day of 2006, he will have given himself a de facto legal victory as well as rendering the Clean Elections law unenforceable. Something worth pointing out here is that Smith is a lawyer and probably knows how to read a contract. Barbara Lubin never put a .357 magnum to his head and made him take Clean Elections money. Smith and other violators such as Rep. Colette Rosati agreed to abide by the rules if they took the money. Showing indignance for the "unfairness" of having to follow the law when they hapilly accepted $30,000 from the people of Arizona not only rings hollow, but it is offensive. Interestingly, one of Smith's attorneys during this episode has been a fellow named Lee Miller. Miller is also a lobbyist who represents, among others, payday lenders and the towing industry. Both of these groups had major legislation effecting their industry last session, and probably will again next session. What does it mean if the attorney that's fighting to keep you in office needs your vote on some legislation? CORRECTION: In my original post, I confused Jim Irvin with Tony West. West was the one that was thrown out in 1999, where Irvin was taken off of the commission for an entirely different set of legal difficulties. Thank you to Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit for pointing out my mistake. Oddly enough, I originally posted with West's name, then changed it. R Cubed regrets the error. It could have been worse: I could have mixed all the affairs up and confused them with Commissioner Buzzard and his infamous Flower Scandal.|W|P|113012516592963525|W|P|Are You STILL Here?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2005 07:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In tommorrow's Tucson Weekly, Jim Nintzel digs into the campaign finance reports of the candidates. Much to his suprise, he finds that the Republican candidates have not raised as much money as their publicly financed Democratic opponents. He says there might be three reasons for this:
1) The Republicans were holding off on the big fundraising so they don't have to reveal the big donors until Oct. 27, when the next round of reports is due;

2) The Republicans thought they'd be able to raise more money, but wallets have been tighter than they expected; or

3) The Republicans never intended to go on the big ol' spending spree of special-interest money that Democrats have been accusing them of for the entire campaign.

Nintzel says that his guess is a combination of 2 and 3. Jim, you aren't allowed to guess two answers, especially when you came up with the list. He failed to consider a fourth possibility. I can bring up a fourth possibility you see, because I didn't write the list. The Republicans are deliberately holding back on their fundraising to deny the Democrats the issue of big money in politics. Yes, it's absolutely brilliant. Okay, maybe not. The reason is a variant of answer number two. The people that typically give to local Republicans just are not excited about this race. Some normally supportive business groups are holding back on support for Fred Ronstadt, mostly because he deals with them in the same high handed manner that he deals with regular citizens. Kathleen Dunbar is seen as a losing cause by many Republican muckety mucks. This is odd, since I always saw her as the stronger candidate of the two. She has a much stronger community presence than Ronstadt does. This may be one case where the quality of the Democratic nominee has scared the Republicans. Karin Uhlich used to be the executive director of the Primavera Foundation, the fundraising list of which has many of the Republican buisinessmen who give to campaigns. I don't know if this has hurt Dunbar's fundraising, but it can't help. I have been suprised by the listlessness of the Republican campaigns so far. I have recieved one piece of mail from Ronstadt's folks, and that wasn't technically a campaign mailing. I haven't seen any ads for either Ronstadt or Dunbar. I have barely seen any activity from pro-Republican "independent" campaigns. I've seen a grand total of three signs for either Ronstadt of Dunbar (by the way, I think I saw more signs for Vernon Walker than the two active candidates). What the heck is going on here?|W|P|112977915166930431|W|P|F-Oldin' Money|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2005 10:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|You obviously missed the billboard on 22nd and Campbell, which has a grotesquely huge picture of Kathleen Dunbar. But, you're right.. I haven't gotten ANY mailings from anyone either, except a nice little message from my favorite Congressman, reminding me to vote Democrat.10/20/2005 07:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yeah...maybe that's where their money is going...to those all so effective billboards...

Maybe if a mailing house habitually broke the law and had an ongoing lawsuit with the city, she'd send more mail.

So, let me get this right Mexilina, Jim Kolbe sent you a mailing asking you to vote Democrat?10/20/2005 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Mister T|W|P|I think they are trying to screw the filing - they don't want to give their opponents any ammo to use against them.

A good example, this bullshit bipartisan committee -- they filed NO ACTIVITY right?

Seems like this is part of their grand strategy.10/20/2005 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|What kind of voting machines do you have in play down there?10/20/2005 10:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I don't know about the exact name for the model, but they are optical scan machines. You bubble in a ballot and feed it into the machine.10/24/2005 02:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I've actually seen more signs for Dunbar (including multiple grotesque billboards) than any other candidate, followed closely by Trasoff, and distantly in third by Uhlich. Rondstadt, apparently has not designed any signs of any kind, but he does have quite a few radio spots running, so if he is spending less money accorping to his disclosures, the cost of printing signs must have really gone up... or he could be lying.10/24/2005 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|OK.. just read your comment, Ted..and, don't hate because Raul didn't call YOU! Alas, since then I've heard that McCain did some phone messages of his own..

BTW, billboards are So Very Ineffective! and although billboards run ~$1,000, signs can be as "cheap" as $5 each.10/19/2005 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Two independent committees have been formed for this year's city council election. As usual, they have inoccuous names that tell you little about what they are about. One is Tucsonans for Bipartisan Government. They have been running ads supporting the relection of Kathleen Dunbar, Fred Ronstadt and Steve Leal. Yes, Steve Leal is on the list too. This makes sense because Leal votes with Dunbar and Ronstadt so often, right? You know, all those motions to adjourn. The group, which is led by Roger Karber of the Arizona Multihousing Association (those are the guys that lobby against the rights of tenants), argues in radio ads for keeping all of the incumbents. Leal has no opponent, and the real estate types who fund the group have demonstrated no love for him before. His presence on the list has more to do with the organization wanting to call themselves "bipartisan" than anything else. The other group is Tucsonans for Accountable Government, which has been running hard hitting ads against Ronstadt and Dunbar. The group is led by west sider Peter Hormel, has been calling the two incumbents out on their supportive votes for Kinder-Morgan. Kinder-Morgan runs a natural gas and gasoline pipeline through Tucson. Two years ago, the pipeline burst, raining gasoline on a west side neighborhood and causing diruptions in the Phoenix gas supply. Kinder-Morgan's reaction to the incident was unfortunately all too typical. They denied they had any responsibility, then invoked homeland security issues when local officials tried to get information about the pipeline. Funny how the lives of local residents don't figure into "homeland security." Later they quietly marked the pipeline and claimed it had been marked all along. Then, they asked, since we need to build a new pipeline anyway, can we put in a bigger one? This came up before mayor and council. Ronstadt and Dunbar took this as an opporitunity to side with local residents against a large corporation. Naw, just kidding. They happily voted to give Kinder-Morgan everything they wanted, despite their behavior after this incident. It seems like it should have been an easy vote: Kinder-Morgan has few employees, if any at all, in Tucson. They don't fund little league teams or the symphony. Tucson got little of its gas from the line. So, the choice wasn't between a local employer who helps out Casa de los Niños on one hand and angry residents on the other. A natural and easy vote for someone who represents citizens would have been a no, but their impulses told them to vote with the suits at Kinder-Morgan (by the way, it is an Enron spinoff). Another vote for the pipeline expansion was then-Democrat Carol West. It was this vote that led a lot of local Democrats to give up on her entirely. Tucsonans for Accountable Government is highlighting this vote in their ads. Expect an angry press release from Judi White soon. NB - Something that really bugged me at the time: the Phoenix media, along with some Phoenix area politicians, saw the Kinder-Morgan issue as entirely about whether SUV owners in Scottsdale would be able to buy cheap gas. Even at some points pressuring the Tucson City Council on the vote so they could continue to fill up at $1.50 a gallon (ah, the good old days). Somehow, the safety of hundreds of Tucsonans was unimportant. By the way, it was the attitude on this issue of the Corporation Commission, composed entirely of Phonecians, that led to Nina Trasoff's first foray into electoral politics.|W|P|112973126362419982|W|P|Proxy War|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/18/2005 07:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Governor Janet Napolitano has defeated yet another Republican candidate, Senate President Ken Bennett. He announced last week that he would not run. When they first said he had an "announcement," I was trying to figure out how he was going to announce a run, given the state's resign to run law. But, sigh, he didn't do that. Bennett said that he is stepping aside to "spend more time with his family." Maybe he is. So many politicians use this excuse that some enterprising reporter ought to follow up and see if getting out of politics actually results in the ex-politico umpiring his daughter's T-Ball games, or if it just means they found another job with similar hours but a lot more pay. This is an interesting follow up to the big story among Republicans a couple of weeks ago. They were touting a rather flawed poll that showed Don Goldwater, of all people, within striking distance of defeating Napolitano. If this were in any way being taken seriously by Republican strategists, Bennett would have jumped right in. You'd think that if they really believed that the vice-chair of a Republican district club could beat Napolitano, that the thought of the Senate President running would have made them salivate. The Republicans are turning once again to Mary Peters and Jan Smith-Florez. Peters is being coy, as I'm sure she has to be. She'd probably be a strong candidate, she's as smart as Napolitano is. Intelligence is a rare and underappreciated quality among Arizona Republicans. I don't think she'll do it in the end. She'll look at the same numbers Bennett's people did and say "no thanks." Smith-Florez would be an interesting candidate. I already hear Republicans talking about her as a Hispanic, even though she is just married to a Hispanic. Given the rhetoric of Don Goldwater and J. D. Hayworth, I find it interesting that they are talking up anyone who is even that close to being Hispanic. How do they stoke up their anti-immigrant base with a woman with a Hispanic surname from a border town? She was elected and re-elected county attorney in Hispanic majority Santa Cruz County, which means she has some significant attraction for Hispanic voters. But, she may want to ask Jaime Molera how much mileage you get in a state wide Republican primary from being popular among Latinos in Nogales. NB - Was Bennett worried about more stories about his record like this one? I saw a guy with a "AuH2O 2006" sticker on his car. I probably don't have to tell you, the car was a Buick being driven by an old white guy. I cut him off just so he'd have to stare at my Raúl Grijalva sticker at the next light.|W|P|112964618594801661|W|P|I'll Chew You Up and Spit You Out (Parte Tres)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2005 10:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Janet Napolitano's approval rating is about 25 points higher in Arizona than George Bush's, because she has done a very good job.

What is really interesting about her approval numbers are this: About 40% of Arizona voters are registered Republicans, so even if we assume that she has 100% approval from Democrats and independents (not all that far off, to be sure) that still means that Republicans haven't even secured their base, if a quarter of Republicans are giving a thumbs up to the governor (meaning there is at least a chance they will vote that way).

Personally, I'd love to see the Republicans run Don Goldwater. Considering that the Republican party hasn't had a presidential ticket since 1972 (a third of a century) without a Bush or a Dole on it, we have a rare opportunity to cast them as the party of the big money plutocratic dynasty. If Jeb Bush or Elizabeth Dole wriggles their way onto the 2008 ticket, you will hear a lot more about that.10/17/2005 06:02:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|AC Milan, Chelsea and Manchester City standout George Weah of the Congress for Democratic Change has managed to make the run-off in the Liberian Presidential election. He garnered 27% of the vote, with Harvard-trained economist Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of the Unity Party taking 17% of the vote. The people of Liberia could do well with either of these candidates. I've written about Weah before, mostly because I admired him for his playing and his struggles. Now, I'm reading a bit more about Johnson-Sirleaf and finding that she too is a remarkable person. She had worked as a finance minister back in the 1970's for the True Whig administration of William Tolbert. She ran as a Senatorial candidate in opposition to strongman Samuel Doe, and was imprisoned then left the country. She did work for the United Nations, World Bank and CitiBank. She came back to work for Charles Taylor as his finance minister, but became disillusioned and called for his ouster. If she were to win, she'd be the first woman elected to lead an African nation. There are deficiencies with both candidates. Weah is not well educated, however, he has travelled the world and done work for UNICEF. The fact that he came out of the Monrovian slums may be an advantage in trying to keep the country together. Johnson-Sirleaf is tainted by her connection to the Taylor administration, but her alliance with him may have been more because at the time he seemed to be a good alternative to Samuel Doe. Also, as a member of the old True Whig party, she is connected with the old "Americo-Liberian" elite, the crowd decended from the freed American slaves that founded the country. Frankly, being tainted by affiliations with past administrations would be natural for anyone that has experience running anything in Liberia.|W|P|112955615160111997|W|P|Liberian Election|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2005 07:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, the Tucson Citizen endorsed Fred Ronstadt for City Council. I sort of expected it, they probably had to do it to make up for their endorsement of Karen Uhlich. The most disturbing aspect of the endorsement was the use of the term "shrill." When I hear the word shrill, I think of some totally off the rails person half screaming about some nonsense. Unfortunately, the term seems to now only be applied to women. For some, it is a more genteel code-word for "bitch." Since the word has this connotation, it has no place in serious political discussion, especially when directed at a female candidate. Nina Trasoff has been frustrated at Fred Ronstadt's mischaracterizations in their joint appearances, even being accused of lying by Ronstadt at some points. I can imagine that she attempted to assert her side of the story at the editorial board. Perhaps women aren't allowed to be assertive without being "shrill." Fred Ronstadt also has been well known to blow up at the public at some meetings. Why is he not called shrill or negative? I don't know, y'all can tell me.|W|P|112951727396593687|W|P|I'll Take Shrill|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/17/2005 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger judnag|W|P|Nina Trasoff is so much smarter than the idiot Wrongstadt - I can't believe how stupid the editorial board is at the Tucson Citizen. Did the Ronstadt family bribe the editorial board? Linda is the only sane Ronstadt. The editorial for personal and vindictive - not at all the usual endorsement from an intelligent newspaper. I wish I subscribed to the Citizen so I could cancel the subscription.10/17/2005 07:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Naw...most of his family are Democrats...go figure.10/18/2005 07:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well, I dont care for Ronstadt but Trasoff is no better either!10/18/2005 07:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Thanks for that incicive and well formed opinion.10/24/2005 03:02:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|That last anonymous blogger gives the rest of us anonymous bloggers a bad name.... I don't care for the Citizen or Rondstadt either - go Nina!10/16/2005 08:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The folks at UNICEF, in an attempt to publicize the issue of child soldiers, have put together a short film that recently aired in Belgium. In the film, the Smurf village is bombed. The Belgians were incensed and decided to take action. Wait, not against the issue of child soldiers...but against the ad. Their poor children were "traumatized." This somehow trumps the trauma of a child being kidnapped from his familly, given a gun and ordered to rape and murder. Before we laugh at the Belgians though, I can see this happening here too. We always think we care, but its easy to care when you don't actually know what is going on. We seem to get more incensed that people point out the problems than we do at the problems themselves.|W|P|112947531725105832|W|P|They've Killed the Smurfs. The Bastards!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2005 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|So that ad is real? I thought it was something that bloggers made up, like Mahir.

It's definitely a powerful message, if one that's upsetting a lot of people...10/17/2005 07:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Nope, it's for real. Click here for details.10/15/2005 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I kept meaning to post about this one; a post from Todd "That Guy" Lawson on another website reminded me about it. 88 year old World War II Army veteran Theodore Roosevelt Heller recently died in Chicago. His obituary has been making the rounds in liberal circles, even rating a mention in a John Nichols column, because of his one request:
In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans.
I think clearly, when a man who gave so much for this country makes a request like this, we must oblige him.|W|P|112942268074501869|W|P|Theodore Roosevelt Heller|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/15/2005 08:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, Councilmember Steve Leal opted out of the city's public financing system. He had been taking heat from Republicans for using public money even though he doesn't have an opponent. Of course, the Republicans have been using public money for their campaigns, they just don't call it that. Just last week, I recieved a city funded mailing from Vice Mayor Fred Ronstadt regarding his "town hall meetings." I have never recieved any mailings from him before, despite the fact that his office is only a few blocks from my house. He had never been too interested in holding "town hall meetings" before now, but he wants half a dozen of them between the primary and general election? Apparently this is okay. One must remember that it is the Republicans own darned fault that Leal doesn't have an opponent. Despite all of the hoo-hah in recent years that the Republicans are developing some sort of rampant popularity in the Hispanic community, they failed to recruit anything resembling a credible candidate in the Hispanic dominated Ward 5. The candidate they recruited, Vernon Walker (an Anglo), had to drop out due to numerous financial, ethical and legal problems. Remember, a candidate has to win city wide, they could lose their ward (as Ronstadt has in the past) and still continue to get re-elected. So, the Democratic domination of the South Side shouldn't have been any more of a barrier to recruitment than the Democratic advantage city wide, which obviously the Republicans have been able to overcome. A few years ago, Mayor Bob Walkup made a big deal about opening a "Southside Republican Headquarters" that showed that somehow he cared about people in the area. The "headquarters" was in the back of a real estate office on South 12th Avenue, and was difficult to find by the few people that were interested in visiting. With this sort of half-hearted outreach (which was probably more of a feint than a strike), it is unsuprising that they couldn't find a stronger candidate. They quietly closed the office in the last year or so. My gut initially told me that what Leal did was a poor decision. I believed that he was backing off too quickly from Republican criticism. I have changed my mind about that. My initial reaction was colored by an incident in the 2003 election, where Tom Volgy ordered the local party to not run an ad critical of the Republicans because the Republican party made a rather baseless threat of a lawsuit. He said "I'd rather not win that way." Well, he didn't win the other way either. Leal made the right decision here. The ongoing criticism of his actions could have endangered the public financing system that we have here, and by extension, the Clean Elections system in Arizona. He will still be able to work hard to get the turnout up for the other Democratic candidates. Interestingly, Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar have opted out of the system entirely, choosing to have their coffers filled by out of town plutocrats. Of course, Sen. John McCain, who is the knight in shining armor of campaign finance reform, has gone ahead and fully backed the big money candidates. In public appearances, Ronstadt has been saying that there is no difference between taking public money and money from rich out of towners. Maybe it wouldn't be for some, but it seems like corporate representatives from out of town seem to have a much easier time getting into Ronstadt's office than a local taxpayer does. Of couse, when he's up for re-election, you can visit a town hall meeting.|W|P|112939180611833681|W|P|Leal Gives Back Public Financing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/14/2005 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Vivian Malone Jones, one of the two students who defied Gov. George Wallace to enroll at the University of Alabama in 1963, died yesterday. She had already been a student at another local college, but felt that she was not getting a quality education at the inferior "separate but equal" school for black students. She and James Hood had to face down a phalanx of Alabama state troopers and Gov. Wallace himself, who chose to stand in the door of the registration office to prevent the two of them from getting registered. It was only after President John F. Kennedy got involved and federalized the Alabama National Guard that Jones and Hood were able to register. As much as we remember the leaders, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, it is important to remember the folks without whose courage these big changes would have never happened. She became the first black graduate from the school, and worked for the Environmental Protection Agency and later the Justice Department in the civil rights division. In both agencies she worked on environmental justice issues. After retiring from federal work, she went back to the University of Alabama to mentor African-American students. In 1996, Gov. Wallace presented Jones with the Lurleen B. Wallace Award of Courage. He had met with Jones years before to ask forgiveness. NB - I went to the University of Alabama's site, and the featured photograph was five smiling white students. Turns out that it was a picture of USA Today's all USA Academic team, and the pictures are rotated, but it struck me weird that the day after Jones died they featured a picture of an all white group of students.|W|P|112932677326635834|W|P|Vivian Malone Jones|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/15/2005 11:42:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous off on a tangent|W|P|Thank you for your tribute to Ms. Jones. I offer a prayer in memory her memory, and to her family and community.

Perhaps it is an appropriate time to offer that the work of Ms. Jones and scores of others who gave EVEN THEIR VERY LIVES for the cause of civil rights and social justice is not over. If history proves anything, it shows that we can't kid ourselves- we are not yet to a higher ground.10/14/2005 06:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A few weeks back, someone told me that a reporter from the East Valley Tribune was doing a story on political bloggers, and I should e-mail him. I can't remember who it was that told me, I keep thinking it was Kiva Oriabi. Anyhow, the reporter was Le Templar, and I did not hear from him for a long time. I got a note late last week from him saying that he decided to limit the article to Phoenix area bloggers. The article ran on Sunday, and features bits about Kevin Spidel, Desert Rat Democrat and Espresso Pundit. The only trouble I have with the article is that Templar says "Arizona bloggers," but made it clear in his e-mail to me that he only wanted to cover Phoenix area bloggers. What Le, there is no Arizona outside of the Valley? This has been a gripe of mine for a long time. Maricopans seem to use the term "Arizona" interchangeably with "Phoenix Metro Area." They do this, but they sure do love those pictures of the Grand Canyon and Tombstone when they want tourists to show up. There are excellent blogs based in Tucson, as well as a few based in other parts of the state. I've run across blogs from Sierra Vista, as well as an unidentified community in "Northeastern Arizona." If the article was supposed to be about Arizona blogs, a more complete picture was called for.|W|P|112929826029973613|W|P|East Valley Tribune Article|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/14/2005 08:36:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|At least your blog is a blog. According to Le Templar, mine isn't.10/14/2005 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail davis|W|P|Too bad you don't use Trackbacks on your site so that I could link my comment about this to yours
http://gail-davis.com/GDFldr/History2005Oct/GailOnline_MyBlog-20051014.htm#Phx-vs-Az-bloggers10/14/2005 11:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kiva|W|P|Wasn't me, but I did read the same thing you did.10/14/2005 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|It was me, maybe if you answered my emails you would remember. And I complimented you in it too!10/14/2005 03:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|I was interviewed for this thing about 6-8 weeks ago, so I'm hazy on the memory (I'll look and see if I still have the original email this evening)

I believe in the original email sent to me that he wrote in terms of "Valley bloggers". Obviously, however, he failed to be that precise in the actual article.

I guess I remembered it in those terms, and really didn't think about it, but if you want to talk about Progressive AZ Bloggers, you can't forget you fine folks down in Baja Arizona. :)10/14/2005 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|OK. After getting home, the email he originally sent to me definitely used the phrase "Valley bloggers", not Arizona bloggers...so I get the feeling he was never intending to look elsewhere. Why that is so, I have no idea, but there it is.

As for why he didn't include Jane, or a whole host of others in the Valley (and there are a few more I'm aware of), I have no idea.

Heck, I read Jane's and yours on a daily basis, Tedski.10/15/2005 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|No blogroll is complete without some of the finest of Tucson's writers.10/11/2005 05:55:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've been watching the back and forth about Harriet Miers, and I had a few observations. One thing that has been funny for me is the hand wringing from conservatives. Last week, William Kristol and Andrew Sullivan doubted the intellectual heft of the nominee. James Dobson issued a staement of strong support. So, this led to the Washington media to try to draw this as some sort of elite vs grassroots (ie - Evangelical) conflict within the party. As is usually the case, the beltway media is over-simplifying the conflict. Dobson has dialed back on his support, and other Evangelical leaders, such as Gary Bauer, have also expressed concern. This, plus the supportive statements of Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Barbara Mikulski should make the media see that this is a lot more complicated than the game of checkers they'd like this to be. The "elite's" concerns seem to be over whether or not Miers is qualified. Frankly, they should have seen this coming. The president has time and time again elevated people based entirely on his personal relationships. Also, the sort of anti-intellectualism that is prevalent in the Republican party, partly and ironically encouraged by them, seems to have made being unqualified and uncredentialed into some sort of bizarre virtue. A trip to 1700 West Washington to watch a session of our legislature will show you what I mean. I'm not saying that Miers is in any way uneducated. She is an accomplished litigator and opened up some doors for professional women in Texas. The trouble is, she hasn't shown any evidence of engagement in the sorts of big issues that will come before the court. Yes, we don't want the Supreme Court to be the baliwick of Ivy League graduates, but by the same token, we don't want just anyone to sit up there. We were told by conservatives not to ask John Roberts about either his religion or his views on issues that will come before the court. Now, Bush and his people are telling conservatives that her faith is strong and that she'll vote the "right" way on Roe v Wade. How come no one calls them on this stuff? By the way, anyone notice that Sen. Arlen Specter asked John Roberts about his Catholicism and how it would effect the way he viewed the issues? Such questions about loyalty toward the constitution were offensive when thrown at Jack Kennedy, and they are offensive now. Do we ask anyone of any other religion this? Will they ask Miers about conflicts between her religion and the constitution? Probably not. Which brings me to another observation. One of the stories being circulated to calm the Evangelicals down is the one about Miers' conversion. As a practicing Catholic, I can tell you that there are a lot of problems within the church. I've never seriously considered leaving, but I can totally understand if someone does, whether they are liberal or conservative. Miers left the church several years ago and joined an Evangelical congregation. I have no problem with this; Miers obvioulsy needed something that the Catholics couldn't offer. However, the rhetoric out of the Evangelicals should be offensive to any Catholic that hears it. In a recent New York Times article for example, Dr. James Dobson said that her conversion "brought her to the Lord." Which would mean that as a Catholic, she wasn't with the Lord, right? Other Evangelical leaders have made similar statements. The message is simple: Conservative Evangelical leaders don't consider the Catholics, the Mormons or even some mainline Protestants proper Christians. It leaves one to wonder where non-Christians end up on their food chain. Conservative Catholics who are concerned about such issues as abortion should remember this when they try to forge political alliances with conservative Evangelicals. They really don't like us. NB - Thank you to the Mirror of Justice, a conservative Catholic site, for some of the links about Dobson and the Evangelicals. Christopher Hitchens, who I don't like but read anyway, has an interesting take on the religion of nominees.|W|P|112903955960579164|W|P|Some More Thoughts on Harriet Miers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/11/2005 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger David Kaiser|W|P|On Catholics and Evangelicals, I think you would enjoy a recent article by Gary Wills in the New York Review of books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=18308

Unfortunately you will have to pay $3.00 but I think you would find it's worth it. But it's scary.

Good luck!

David Kaiser
historyunfolding.blogspot.com10/11/2005 11:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous off on a tangent|W|P|Right on! The days of Oral Roberts and Billy Graham deeming Catholics heretics and idolators are not so far in our past... age and experience seems to have brought Billy Graham around to a sort of respect of the Catholic faith, and I do not what has happened of late to Roberts, but I don't take this as part and parcel of people of the same ilk. There is still much of that mindset still lurking around, unfortunately some of these mucks choose to hide under the Evangelical banner. I do not believe, however, that this small mindedness is something shared by even a majority of Evangelicals.

To comment on another point that you made... you mentioned that you are a practicing Catholic. It seems to me that is the key, you keep practicing, trying to live your faith, until you get it right...

Sometimes that faith is right for you, but that does not hold true for all.

IMOHO, of course.10/12/2005 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|Conservative Catholics who are concerned about such issues as abortion should remember this when they try to forge political alliances with conservative Evangelicals.

It's a great strategy to move Catholics from the left to the right -- make them believe that by forgoing their traditional ideology of helping the poor and opposing the death penalty, they can save the lives of unborn babies. The meme is out that voting for a Democrat is the same as voting for abortion. It's hard for a lot of Catholic voters to resist.10/13/2005 12:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It's not about religion. It's about ideology.

And Miers' record on the Dallas City council suggests that if she gets on the Supreme Court, she won't be a knee-jerk conservative. Of course that was fifteen years ago, but at the time she was moderate, siding with liberals on a resolution of support for maintaining sanctions on the South African apartheid government, and this little gem:

Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.

The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."


She also sponsored one resolution: in support of the students after the Tianenmen Square massacre.

On other votes she was more in line with conservatives.

What this tells me is that Miers is willing to think independently. Apparently that frightens conservatives.

But it gives me some hope.10/10/2005 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In addition to his regular Political Notebook, C. J. Karamargin had two other political stories in this morning's Star. This is a new record. In his regular column, he has a long piece on Jon Kyl taking Jim Pederson "seriously" as an opponent and pretty much posts Kyl's travel schedule for the next week. He points out that Pederson hasn't made any appearances in Tucson since announcing. That may very well be, and Jim should get on that. Then again, would the Star cover it? Or, would there just be a smart alecky piece in Political Notebook about, I dunno, a tie Pederson is wearing to a dinner at Larry Hecker's house? Maybe Pederson understands that we have a high profile city council race here and it is sucking up most of the political oxygen. I take it that Karamargin knows that there is a council election, right? Karamargin tries to show that Kyl is taking Tucson seriously because he is doing an anouncement at the Pima Air and Space Museum, which means he can get off of I-10, do his announcement and go without ever seeing the city. He will be introduced by Lute Olson's new wife Christine, who, as far as I know, has never lived in Tucson. If this is what passes for taking our town seriously, then Pederson doesn't have much to worry about.|W|P|112896669546109942|W|P|C.J.'s Notebook|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/12/2005 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous off on a tangent|W|P|CJ... I'm guessing...not a democrat? ;010/12/2005 08:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I have never checked. I think he probably votes that way, but reporters vote Democratic all of the time and then write snarky pieces on the folks they voted for.10/12/2005 04:51:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|He is a Dem but also works for he Star. You do the math.10/10/2005 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|About 800 people attended a candidate forum put on by the Pima County Interfaith Council yesterday. In the past, these fora have been attended by Republicans, Democrats and candidates of other parties. This year, however, both Republican City Council Candidates, Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar, decided that they would have "prior commitments." Ronstadt's reasons are probably legion. He seems to have a problem dealing with anything but an adoring audience, and those are becoming fewer and farther between. When Dunbar first ran, the PCIC had a similar forum and she stood up there and committed to expanding funding of after-school programs such as KIDCO and of job training programs like Jobpath. Instead, after she got elected she voted to cut both KIDCO and Jobpath and attached fees to other after- school and summer programs. See, the PCIC doesn't like being lied to. There is a reason they refer to their forums as "accountability sessions." Dunbar was probably worried about having to actually explain herself. Unfortunately, the absence of Dunbar and Ronstadt has already led Star reporter C. J. Karamargin to refer to the forum as "partisan." I wonder if the next Chamber of Commerce or SAHBA event that doesn't include a Democrat will be called partisan? It's silly to call PCIC partisan, since they are just as likely to call a Democrat out who doesn't support their agenda as they are a Republican. In fact, there are Democratic elected officials who don't go to their events for that reason. They take huge pains to stay out of anything that even smells of cooperation with any campaign or party. Let's face it though, a Democrat is more likely to be friendly to their ideas. Why is that so bad?|W|P|112896636566830830|W|P|PCIC Forum|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/08/2005 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Republicans have apparently not figured out yet that we are on their e-mail lists. I've been on Al Melvin's list for a few months, and I have only got one. It was pretty boring, otherwise I would have put it up here and made all sorts of unfair attacks. Tony Cani managed to get a hold of an e-mail from the chair of the Yavapai County Republican Party that was blasted to local activists. Tony, of course, posted it to Daily Kos. Go over there and check it out. Kenton D. Jones, the mahout of the party up there, is angry because local activists seem to be asleep in the face of the Yavapai Democratic Juggernaut. Mayor William O. Keep in mind, however, that the Democrats up there have yet to win an election. The county is extremely Republican, and has been reliably so since territorial days. Corporation Commissioner Marsha Weeks won there, but she won everywhere (except, of course, Maricopa County). The only other Democrat I can think of off hand who won there was Sen. "Five Syllable" Henry Fountain Ashurst, who was from there. This is not a place that Democrats won in, even in the days of the rural "Pinto" Democrats. The local party there, however, has been very active. Evidently, showing signs of life is enough to send the Republicans into palpatations. These guys are so used to just resting on their registration advantage that they can't handle this. John Kerry managed barely 38% of the vote there, which is still better than he was supposed to do. This is enough to stampede the elephants. The e-mail smacks of the desperation of a political organizer that is totally out of ideas what to do next. I've been there too. Sucks, donnit? I don't think the Yavapai Republicans have been in this much hysteria since Buckey O'Neill ditched them for the Populists back in 1894.|W|P|112878423056615434|W|P|Panic In Prescott|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/08/2005 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|Actually, Democratic State Representative Henry Camarot (2001-2002) hailed from Prescott. He won mostly because of disgust and embarassment concerning right-wing carpetbagger Barbara Blewster. I have never met him, but I hear that he was a courageous and thoughtful legislator.10/09/2005 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I should not have forgotten about Mr. Camarot. He would be the first to tell you that he could not have gotten eelcted, and probably would not have run, if it wasn't for the activists in Prescott. The crew that started the revitalization up there came in durring that 2000 election.10/08/2005 06:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Pres. Bush said this yesterday:
Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Yeah, awful of him to be asking others to sacrifice when people like him don't have to. Does this mean that Jenna and Barbara are finally signing up? NB - Thanks to Barabara D. for the heads up on this one. By the way, this is post number 100! Woo hoo!|W|P|112877854374966444|W|P|I Thought that 9/11 Was the End of Irony|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/05/2005 06:01:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't know how many of you remember, but way back in 1992, one of Bush the Elder's campaign spokesmen suggested that Bill and Hilary Clinton were planning to invite Fidel Castro to the White House for dinner if the Democrats won the election that year. As unfounded as it was, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the truth was not important, because it was not "far from what can be imagined." This logical construct leaves you with a lot of room to come up with all sorts of far fetched scenarios. So, in that spirit, here is a note from the always level headed Sen. Jack W. Harper posted on Espresso Pundit:
According to the Associated Press article in the Arizona Republic on-line, Cindy Sheehan is urging Governor Napolitano to request that Arizona National Guard troops be withdrawn from Iraq. This would, of course, undermine the United States' foreign policy in Iraq. The news of a "high-ranking official" such as a governor, calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, would incite the insurgents. Our troops in that country would further be in harms way. I have spoken to a few of the members of the Arizona House Judiciary committee. The consensus is that the Governor should not pander to Ms. Sheehan, or run the risk of being impeached. Janet Napolitano has flirted with being impeached in her handling of the CoppeRx drug card. One pharmacy ended up with a sweet-heart deal that was different than they bid on. The GOP-controlled legislature is drawing a line in the sand. If the Governor decides to side with anti-American groups and their contributor, George Soros, she will be available to work with them full time. We will remove her from office for treasonous actions. State Senator Jack W. Harper
Setting aside the premise that somehow the insurgents at this point haven't been "incited," Harper's main argument is on ground shakier than poorly set lime Jello. Let's follow the logic: Sheehan has asked the Governor (not even officially) to withdraw the National Guard from Iraq. Because the Governor has been asked, she should be impeached. That is the only thing I can figure because there is no way in heck that the Governor is even going to seriously consider pulling the Guard from Iraq. It doesn't even seem like she has the authority, since the troops are under the President when they get mobilized for this sort of action. So, the Governor is asked to do something that she will not do, and doesn't even have the authority to do. This is grounds for impeachment? These are the sorts of serious discussions that goes on in the judiciary committee? Folks like Harper seem to think that anyone to their left is some sort of Marxist. Because of this, these sorts of leaps make perfect sense: she's a Democrat, thus she must be on the phone with Cindy Sheehan all of the time, because Cindy Sheehan disagrees with me on the war, she's a traitor, thus, Janet Napolitano is a traitor. Lovely. This guy is on the judiciary committee. That committee runs our courts, right? God help us. NB - I will be putting up a picture of the Captain America villain, Batroc the Leaper, on future posts about strange Republican logical leaps. I figure that since the Batroc character is French, this will irritate the Republicans even more. Also, note the gratuitous swipe at George Soros. I'm glad to see that the Republicans are angry about these fat cats throwing their money around in our politics. So, they will all be on board for Clean Elections now, right?|W|P|112851994305521965|W|P|Let's Call it the Republican Leap|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/05/2005 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I agree with you that the Governor won't withdraw the troops for both political and legal reasons, but personally I would love it if she did.

We have lost over 1900 American soldiers fighting Mr. Bush's war, and the best outcome we can hope for is a stable, Islamic republic not so different from Iran (and probably with close ties to Tehran). Considering that this was the outcome we spent the 1980's living in fear of (and why we supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war), it requires more of that Republican 'logic' to claim that we are anywhere close to a 'victory'.

I just wonder if they will let female Iraqi citizens, who were doctors, lawyers and professors under Saddam's brutal, but secular regime, even have the right to go to junior high school in the new Iraq.10/05/2005 11:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Not to disrespect your brother or my own fine state leg members but a lot of times it seems nitwits get into the state leg so of course we are going to have mindlessly stupid ideas like this pop up. A company of fools.10/05/2005 12:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Bobby|W|P|Ironically enough, I think you made a bit of a leap yourself in tearing into Sen. Harper's letter.

You say "Sheehan has asked the Governor (not even officially) to withdraw the National Guard from Iraq. Because the Governor has been asked, she should be impeached."

However, that doesn't seem to be what Harper states at all. Harper suggests that were Gov. Napolitano to heed Sheehan and "request that Arizona National Guard troops be withdrawn from Iraq," it would create an unfortunate political tool for the anti-US voices to use.

He says it plainly: "The news of a "high-ranking official" such as a governor, calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, would incite the insurgents."

Nowhere is it suggested that Napolitano withdraw the troops, only to "request" that they be withdrawn. Regardless you seemed to harp on her inability to order the troops home.

It seems to me that you gave Harper's words little more than a glance before you leapt off into your eager ranting.

Good job.10/05/2005 08:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I am not such a pollyanna to think you need "grounds" for impeachment. I know that you can be impeached for whatever the right number of legislators think you can be impeached for.

Harper implies that he has had serious discussions about impeachment because Cindy Sheehan has asked her to call for the withdrawl of troops. Harper's leap is that he is already discussing impeaching the Governor for something entirely conjectural, and very unlikely.

Elected officials are asked to do things all the time. Does that mean it is even going to happen? No. No matter how much of a boogeywoman the right has made Sheehan, it doesn't mean she has a strong following among elected officials. Should we assume that everytime anyone asks an elected official to do something, that they will do it?

One has to wonder if he takes his responsibilities seriously if he will discuss impeachment with his colleagues, and publicize it, because of something so conjectural.10/06/2005 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Bobby|W|P|No, that's the beautiful part. One doesn't have to wonder whether he will discuss impeachment because he stated his terms, so to speak.

I think Harper is clear that stakes will be raised to serious talk of impeachment--> if Gov. Napolitano calls for the Arizona National Guard to return home from Iraq. Not orders, not returns them herself, but makes a public call for their return.

Harper only warns Napolitano against publicly fanning the political flames by making such a call, cautioning her that to do so would be to flirt with impeachment.

Yes, Harper did make a serious leap, but not one of logic. He raised the stakes in so publicly opposing the war for Napolitano. Arguably this was, in fact, a hollow or over-furious threat directed at the governor, but that is irrelevant to the matter when following the logic.10/06/2005 05:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|And, as I am reminded nearly every day, logic has no place in the Arizona Legislature.10/07/2005 03:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Poor Tom...would you like a cookie?

Wait that came out wrong...It was sincere.10/07/2005 11:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I love Batroc the Leaper. I hope you don't mind if I shamelessly steal your idea on my own blog?10/08/2005 12:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sure...go right ahead, man.zcw10/04/2005 02:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|(Former?) Rep. David Burnell SmithRep. David Burnell Smith's motion for a rehearing on his campaign finance violations was denied today. According to past case law, this means that his seat is vacant, no matter how much noise he makes. The machinery to put appoint a replacement will begin as soon as the judge officially notifies the Secretary of State of the vacancy. Eventually, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will appoint a replacement. Say, anyone know what happens if the Maricopa County Supervisors re-appoint Smith? Unlikely, given the tensions between them and the legislature. But, expect there to be a move from the activists to do that. The Clean Elections Institute hasn't yet put the news on their site, but check in there later and find more details.|W|P|112846132167618817|W|P|Gone Gone Gone...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/05/2005 08:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I don't mind your putting up the picture of Smith, but it's too bad that blogger (as far as I know) doesn't have the machinery in place for you to put a big red circle with a bar through it over his face, or a big X. Or better yet, the picture swirling down a flushing toilet.

I just hope the county board of supervisors has the good sense to do as you say, and not appoint Smith to replace himself. If they did though, I suspect you'd see voter backlash because even those who might be inclined to support Smith would consider such a move a breech of duty. It would likely lead to a drive for a general purpose constitutional amendment that would specify that no one could be appointed to a vacancy in which they would succeed themselves.

You will almost certainly see Smith running for the seat next year, though, so hopefully they will appoint someone who won't give up the seat without a fight.10/07/2005 11:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Well, the Supes will have to have three to choose from, so the GOP committee can't completely force their hands. But Smith could be among those three, presumably.

There isn't an answer to whether Smith could serve. I suspect that the courts would hold that Smith is not legally a 'qualified' nominee since forfeiture of office is the punishment meted out by Clean Elections. To allow his reappointment would in effect nullify state law. If you got the right judge, that might happen. But it wouldn't survive review, I'm sure.

Smith may have some fight left in him, but it's the flopping in the bottom of the boat variety, not the just hooked and still in the water type.10/03/2005 08:00:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Harriet Miers was a goundbreaker for women in the law profession. I know that maybe that makes it okay to forgive a lot of other faults. I'm unclear about what she actually will mean for the Supreme Court though. Aside from her leading the anti-abortion forces in a fight within the Texas Bar Association, she's basically an ideological cypher. It seems that she got nominated more because of her closeness to the president than any ideology. Given what may soon become before the court, this may be more of a problem than her views on privacy or the first ammendment. I'm not sure if I should take this as a good sign or not, but conservatives have been having caniptions. Andrew Sullivan refers to her as an "indentured servant of the Bush family". William Kristol says he is "depressed, disappointed and demoralized." Both David Frum and Michelle Malkin are unimpressed. Conservative bloggers are very angry. I'd be happier about all of this except I remember that these guys wouldn't be happy with anyone to the left of Roger Taney. Wonkette's spies have found out that Miers had a spat with Priscilla Owen over a guy. It would be more interesting, until you think about what kind of guy Miers and Owen would be fighting over. This morning I heard an interview with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and she said that Miers's nomination is a nod to regional diversity. She said that not all good legal minds are in Washington. Okay, I agree with that. But, take a look where the current members cut their teeth before going on the court:
  • Stevens: Illinois
  • O'Connor: Arizona
  • Scalia: Mostly DC
  • Kennedy: California
  • Souter: New Hampshire
  • Thomas: DC
  • Ginsburg: New York/California
  • Breyer: DC
So, is "regional diversity" just a codeword for "Texan"? Frum reports that Miers said that President Bush is the smartest person she has ever met. Either she is prone to poor judgement or has a very limited experience with other human beings. Either way, these are probably bad signs for a court career.|W|P|112839667833328506|W|P|Okay, I'm Not Sure Exactly What to Think|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/03/2005 06:19:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sarah Rosen, who served as the State Democratic Party's Press Secretary durring the 2004 campaign, was killed in a car accident in Kentucky last week. In addition to working for the Arizona Democratic Party, she had also worked for Rep. Jane Harman and Rep. Sam Farr. I remember her most as the one that had to keep us delegates from mouthing off to the press at the Democratic convention.|W|P|112834584037845372|W|P|Sarah Rosen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/03/2005 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|She was a nice lady. We will miss her.11/03/2005 01:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Erik Trevino|W|P|DM3 just informed me about this last night. Where have I been all these months? I was heart broken. She was a sweet gal who made sure I didnt mouth off in Boston. She did a good job of keeping us all in check.

Rest well Sarah.
And see if you can pull some strings for us Dems in 06 & 08 ;-)10/02/2005 07:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Vice-Mayor Fred RonstadtI was talking to one of the owners of the Surly Wench Pub the other night. Apparently, Vice-Mayor Fred Ronstadt called her up and wanted to visit. And, he wanted a t-shirt too. Why couldn't he just walk in to the place like everyone else? This amused the owner of the place. You see, when their liquor license application came before mayor and council about two years ago, there was a motion against it. Moved by Fred Ronstadt, seconded by Kathleen Dunbar. Dunbar's stated reason for being against it was that she didn't like the name of the place. No word on Ronstadt's reasons. When a new Walgreen's or CVS opens up, who are the point people to get their licenses? Fred and Kathleen, of course. Kind of gives a lie to that whole "we support small business" thing, don't it? The bar is not a "lesbian" bar, but it is owned by a lesbian couple and is well known as "gay friendly." Ronstadt is actually good on gay and lesbian issues, and not just "good for a Republican" either. Recently, a local gay and lesbian group gave him their endorsement. Maybe Fred is trying to further burnish his credentials? I ask that because many people just walk into that bar to buy t-shirts. I saw C. J. Karamargin in there once to get one for his sister. Joe Sweeney even comes there on some nights. The only reason I can see for the call is to make it a bit "higher profile." Maybe she misunderstood and it was something even more crass like he wanted to come in and get himself photographed talking to lesbian buisiness owners, who knows? A normal human being, or even a normal politician, would have just walked into the place and, I dunno, been friendly. "Friendly" is beyond Ronstadt, though. NB - Marginally related item: a guy claiming to be Mayor Bob Walkup's son (I have my doubts about if he really was) got thrown out of the place one night. He, of course, claimed he "knew people."|W|P|112826528143182218|W|P|Odd, Really|W|P|prezelski@aol.com