11/30/2005 08:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Raúl Grijalva will be giving a talk on the Iraq war Thursday night at the U of A. This notice has gone out on the College Republican ListServ, so we need to stack the room. The CRs do tend to bring down the average IQ. A release from Grijalva's office:
Rep. Grijalva to Discuss Iraq War at University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ- Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva will speak on the current political situation in Iraq at the University of Arizona. The discussion will take place on Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 6:00 pm in Social Sciences 100. The event is sponsored by the UA's Social and Behavioral Science Department and Political Science, History and Middle Eastern Studies.
|W|P|113340951588150422|W|P|Grijalva Speech|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/01/2005 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desdemona|W|P|Missed you there! Why do you announce events you yourself don't show up for? Now you can't review it!12/02/2005 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I was in class, bettering myself.12/02/2005 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|How'd that work out for you?12/02/2005 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I now know how a radio is tuned.12/02/2005 09:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|...and knowing is half the battle11/30/2005 10:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| I was saddened last week to learn about the sudden death of Albert Soto. Soto was heavily involved in the life of this community, doing things ranging from helping to found the nationally recognized Borderlands Theater to pressuring TUSD to actually spend its desegregation money on, um, desegregation. He appeared annually in the Tucson Pastorela as the most cheerfully dastard depiction of the devil since Jon Lovitz. Soto did something that a lot of us have done. He checked off the box on their driver's licenses to be an organ donor. It doesn't take much, but as the cliché goes, it can save a life, right? Well, they don't want Albert Soto's organs. Soto was gay. This policy emerged durring the early years of the AIDS crisis, when no one knew where the heck the disease came from or why it spread. On some level, I can understand the reasons for this policy 25 years ago, when there weren't reliable tests for the disease and it seemed to be spread among gay men. Now, there is no excuse for the policy. In fact, the disease is spreading far faster among heterosexuals these days than among gay men. Even though I regarded Soto as a friend, I knew nothing about his love life. Then again, neither do the people who crafted this policy. It isn't being gay that causes the disease, it's behavior, right? Are we assuming that a gay man who is in a steady relationship for years is more likely to be infected than a heterosexual who can't name who he took home from the Keys last Friday? I was thinking that maybe someone should have said that Albert's last words were, "Check the knockers on that broad..." Maybe then they'd take the organs.|W|P|113337359321438273|W|P|Sorry, You Are Just Not Welcome|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/30/2005 11:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The FDA needs to revisit these rules. But then considering they will not even let Plan B be over the counter...they probably will not change the rules until we get a Democratic President.12/01/2005 12:23:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Cruel joke of the organ donation world... a man who had guts and was willing to give , and an organization that does not have the guts to receive.12/01/2005 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|The American Red Cross revisited their own discriminatory policy about four years ago...and upheld it.

It certainly defies all logic and compassion.12/03/2005 12:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|They aren't really afraid of spreading AIDS via tissue transplantation.

They are instead afraid that a god-loving staunch Republican manly-man may receive his heart and then subsequently develop a fondness for Catwoman, musical theater, and pricey merlot.11/30/2005 07:11:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Tucson Weekly reporter Jim Nintzel mentioned R-Cubed's Jim Kolbe scoop on a special edition of Reporter's Roundtable on last Wednesday's Arizona Illustrated. I so rock. Follow this link to see the video. Of course, Jim mentioned my name, but not the URL. Hey, help a guy out, Jim.|W|P|113336012360485024|W|P|Obligatory and Overblown Self-Congratulation|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/30/2005 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Tom Volgy should run - he has impeccable progressive credentials and he would be the smartest candidate running from either party. He may be boring but he and McNulty were the only two who ever gave Kolbe a run for his money....11/30/2005 07:28:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|True. However, we cannot afford to just give the Republican "a run for his money"...We need a smart, principled, progressive/moderate Democrat who can win--a candidate who has the best chance of inspiring the Democratic base, independents, and even disgruntled Republicans to vote for him/her. CD8's present voter registration is

152,000 Republicans;
133,000 Democrats;
97,000 Others/Independents; and
3,000 Libertarians. [AZ Sec. of State website]

Also, we need a candidate who will respond STRONGLY when the locally- and nationally-funded Republican 527s and Club for Growth try to break our candidate's kneecaps [so to speak].12/01/2005 12:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I agree with you, after Volgy's last campaign, who would want to go through that again. But it sounded like you just described Richard Elias - he should run - the Republicans are going to send so many candidates against each other in the primary that Randy Graf is bound to survive and if that happens whoever emerges from our side is going to have a much better chance at winning over those 97,000 than he, so let's elect the smartest, most principled person in town who is not already in Congress.12/01/2005 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|With all due respect to Professor and former Mayor Volgy, he has name recognition, but could not beat Mayor Walkup in a city with dominant democrat registration numbers. Would he be an excellent U.S Congressman...YES...can he win...I doubt it.12/01/2005 03:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I agree with the person before Kralmajales that Richard Elias should run. He would be an excellenct US Congressman and he could win. A general election between Elias and Graf would be a joy to watch.12/01/2005 03:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Interesting point about Richard Elias. Name recognition and a great deal of support backing him as well.

Would Supervisor Elias be considered more or less liberal than Gabrielle Giffords though? Again, I worry about whether he is electable.

Against Graf, I have no worries about either of them. However, against a Ray Carroll...in a moderate to slightly learning Republican district?

On the fifth hand, any worry of a strong Republican could be trumped if Republicans continue to stay home and lick their wounds while Democrats crawl over broken glass to the polls.12/01/2005 10:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|You know, I hadn't thought about R. Elias, but he is one to show up everywhere and has done more than most supvs now. I hope it doesn't come out to be a Giffords-Elias decision, because my vote would go for Elias.12/02/2005 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Guys (or gals, hard to tell when you are anonymous)...Richard ain't running. Cool your jets.12/02/2005 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Speaking of jets - I bet Richard would actually have a better chance than Gabrielle of actually getting DMAFB to actually do something about all of the increased jet noise over our neighborhoods. She seems to be in bed with them - between the pictures in the flightsuits and the boyfriend....11/29/2005 11:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, the first candidate to take the plunge since the exit of Jim Kolbe has offered up her name. 2004 Democratic Nominee Eva Bacal is on the verge of announcing that she is running. Bacal was a long time member of the Tucson Unified School District Board (serving at roughly the same time as Raúl Grijalva) and is the wife of Martin Bacal, former Democratic National Committeeman. Many of the other possible candidates will probably not announce until mid-January, when they will no longer be forced out of office under the "resign to run" law.|W|P|113329041419773998|W|P|Eva Bacal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/29/2005 02:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|This time she won't be the "Only Woman Running"!


Giffords 06'11/29/2005 04:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Be careful, Madame Farbo, some anonymous person will call you a sycophant...11/29/2005 09:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I just hope that the Democrats down there learn that a free-for-all primary may not be a good thing. We had that up here when the new district was created in 2002, got a deeply flawed candidate who won by plurality, and have since been stuck with a first class jerk from Virginia, Rick Renzi.

TEAM, GUYS, TEAM!11/29/2005 10:24:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|No kidding .... But it will be a crowded election next September! Anyways, this will take the sails off other candidates around the state - and on both sides!

This could only help Jim Pederson11/29/2005 11:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|TO: anonymous

re: this could only help Jim Pederson.

Can you explain how since he is running for the U.S. Senate, not the House in CD-8?

And, you welcome re: the resign to run law.11/30/2005 08:48:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well it is nice that the so-called progressives are lining up behind the most conservative Democrat in the State Legislature - maybe this way we'll confuse the Republicans into who to vote for in the general - perfect plan... The more candidates the better, that way maybe someone who will actually vote with Speaker Pelosi will get the job instead of the annointed tire queen.11/30/2005 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The "most conservative Democrat in the state legislature"?

Have you met Marsha Arzberger? Jack Brown?

I only point to those two to show that anyone who says that Gabby is the "most conservative" hasn't been paying much attention.

Despite her reputation and ties to the business community, she has built quite a progressive record. If you don't want to believe me, check out what Kevin Spidel has to say about her on his blog. I think Spidel's progressive cred is unimpeachable, don't you?11/30/2005 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|She was not the only woman running last time either.11/30/2005 11:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Again to anonymous: How does this help Jim Pedersen?

Also, in re: to the anointed "tire queen," can you explain how she is a conservative?

In re: to CD-8, it will be a contested primary for both the Democrats AND the Republicans. Do you have a preference for both races?11/30/2005 12:16:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well I'm glad she's good on the death penalty, but I'm curious where she stands on other issues like choice. Her conservatism is on economic bread and butter issues and that's distressing, but maybe that's the best anyone can hope for coming from the Republican side of town. As for the other anonym's comment about this helping Jim Pederson, I don't have a clue what she was talking about....11/30/2005 11:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|For TUCSONMARK--

NOTE: The "Anonymous" in this thread is not the one who asked you about the citation for the "resign to run". I [a different "Anonymous"] asked you re the citation in the "An Apology" thread and thanked you under that thread. Again, I really appreciate your help on this.

I also would like to know how the free-for-all in CD 8 will help Pedersen.

More important though for "Anonymous November 30 12:16", what has Giffords done or said that makes you think that she is the most conservative Democrat in the state legislature?

Obviously we can't present our most-left-of-center Democrat in November 2006 and expect to win CD8--not unless the Dems can register another 50,000+ [100,000+] Dems who will actually vote in November.... or 1 [or 2] of our upstanding Arizona Republican congressional delegation gets indicted in September 2006 for something quite bad.12/12/2005 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Is Bacal a communist or what? Why is she considered so far left that we don't want to run her again?11/29/2005 08:12:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| So, today's topic is romanism and rebellion. Today is the birthday of Dorothy Day. If you don't know who she is, I found a short description of her here, complete with more than a dozen links to more sites about her and her movement.

The greatest care should be taken to give a warm reception to the poor and pilgrims, because it is in them above all others that Christ is welcomed. - Rule of Saint Benedict, Chapter 53

NB - The biography that I linked above gives the date of November 8th as her birthday, but I've seen today given as the birthday in other sources.|W|P|113327782367849074|W|P|Dorothy Day's Birthday|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/01/2005 12:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Goody 2 shoes|W|P|Hooray for Dorothy Day! She actually had a clue about charity and loving your fellow brother.

While were at it- lets remember to take a second a look through our closets. Are there any jackets sweaters, blankets or the like that you aren't going to be looking fashionably fab in? If you answer "YES" then please deliver thy goods to Tucson's own Dorothy Day- Brian Flagg, George and the crew at Casa Maria Soup Kitchen.11/27/2005 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Today is the beginning of the first week of Advent, when the Church begins its Christmas season. We have already seen in recent weeks many on the right accuse us on the left of somehow trying to destroy Christmas. Seems to me though, their friends in the corporate world have far more to do with killing off the spirit of Christmas. Exhibit one is the stampedes that happened at stores on so-called "Black Friday." The chains purposely hype their post-Thankgiving sales, and some manufacturers, particularly electronics manufacturers, purposely create a scarcity. For some reason, people like to be manipulated into becoming these near rabid mobs. I'm not one of these knee jerk anti-cosumerism types. However, Christmas seems to get worse and worse every year. Last year, I read a book called the Battle for Christmas by Stephen Nussbaum. In it, he talks about the origins of Christmas in America, and the reaction of the religious community to it. Interestingly, in the English colonies, the people that spoke up against the crass commercialism of Christmas were the "religious right" of the day, people like Cotton Mather. These guys now seem to be more concerned about whether or not Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays." There is hope. Okay, he's not a religious leader, but he seems to be better connected with what the season is supposed to mean than some are. There's a guy named Reverend Billy who runs something called the Church of Stop Shopping. Check his stuff out. That's tonight's rant. I'll get back to griping about politicians tommorrow.|W|P|113315163857586323|W|P|Advent|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/29/2005 03:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Danny|W|P|Hello, I've been a lurker for a bit. I've lived in Tucson for about a year. I've become fascinated with both Tucson's and the southwest's politics and am increasingly posting about them. Just thought I'd blogwhore a bit and direct interested traffic over to my post regarding Sun Tran and the Rio Nuevo project11/26/2005 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I recieved an e-mail from Gretchen Wagenseller, a Democratic Precinct Committeeperson from the Northwest Side. She asked that I add the Friends of Farley blog on my "progressive" blogroll. I didn't initially add Farley because I was supporting Nina Trasoff in the primary. Since that's over now, I guess it's okay to add him. Since he lost the primary, his campaign website has become more of a political blog, where he comments on local issues. I don't always agree with him, but he's always thought provoking. Also, this means that I took off the campaign sites for Trasoff and Karin Uhlich. Also, I took down the link to Fred Ronstadt's blog. See, my joke was that he never put anything on there. I also removed the link to the other Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion (they include that final comma). The site has not been updated since February, so there isn't much point in keeping that up there. I will keep the blog roll, but I may ditch the "blogrolling" service. I thought it would be nice to have the tag that tells the user if a site has been updated or not. The presence of the "Updated!" tag seems to only have the most coincidental relationship to whether or not the page has been updated. I found it odd that Ms. Wagenseller called my list of blogs "progressive," since it includes Espresso Pundit. Something funny has been going on over the last few days. Progressive friends of mine have been telling me about how great Jeff Latas is. They point to his military record as one reason why the Republicans would be scared of him. Some of these same people gave me grief a year and a half ago for supporting Wesley Clark.|W|P|113306710018777525|W|P|Housekeeping and Such|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/27/2005 04:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|What a difference a year makes. I think that a lot of heads will be turned by Latas. Not only is there there intervening Hackett phenominon, but some Dems see nominating vets as a cheap and easy way to make it appear that we have a cogent foreign policy. And, hey, maybe it wouldn't hurt.

I still don't trust Wes, though :)11/27/2005 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Gretchen Wagenseller|W|P|Thanks for including Steve Farley's blog in your, let's say, "diverse yet progressive leaning" list of blogs. [GAK! mea culpa--I just now checked out Espresso Pundit.]

Many of us Dems are interested in Jeff Latas' candidacy. The AZ Daily Star included CD 8 statistics from the Almanac for American Politics--20,000 more Republicans than Democrats; 2004 election--53% for Bush and 46% for Kerry; 19.1% veterans. With these statistics, obviously Latas' military service is a plus--and the Dems are going to needed a lot of plusses to win this seat.

FYI--I live in P 186--I'm not a PC.11/28/2005 05:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I'm sorry, I thought your e-mail said you were a PC in District 26.

Glad to see you are a reader though.11/25/2005 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The other day I refered to a Tucson Citizen article that implied that Sen. Gabrielle Giffords was planning to leave town before Jim Kolbe announced he was retiring. As it turns out, the reporter for the Citizen was mistaken, and my refering to the article amplified the mistake. Giffords called me a bit angry about my putting that part in and implying that she was leaving. Apparently, people actually read this blog, and they called her to ask her what the deal was. I'd like to apologize to Gabrielle for this. She was never planning on leaving town. Her beau is a navy pilot and astronaut (yeah, Gabby has such low standards) who is very understanding that she feels some special responsibilities to this community. He hasn't asked her to leave town, and she doesn't want to leave town. So, I made two mistakes here. For one thing, I was trying to be snarky. For another, I trusted that an article in the Citizen was well researched.|W|P|113297444460791200|W|P|An Apology|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/26/2005 12:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, stop with the fake modesty. We all know you revel in how many people adore this blog for it's snarky insightful commentary and reporting. And you can quote me on that.11/26/2005 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Good, because it's better than your other quote that I used.11/26/2005 09:46:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What about her resignation in the state senate to campaign. This show very poor judgement and leaves the senate veto proof.11/26/2005 10:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Snarky is one thing - for which you do well but trusting the corporate hack, mainstream media Ted for their reporting?! For shame! All is forgiven though because you do kick ass with your writing!11/26/2005 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|To: anonymous - Re: potential resignation. Arizona's resign to raw does not affect people in the last year of their term, meaning that you will see nothing happen until after the ball drops in Times Square starting 2006 on "both sides of the aisle." Plus, has a letter of resignation been published as well as no Democratic candidates running for the seat in the Democratic dominated LD 28?11/26/2005 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well that should have locked you up a job as her campaign manager - you sycophant....11/27/2005 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|For TUCSONMARK--

I don't understand what you said re the "potential resignation". Could you clarify re this? Are you saying that Gabrielle would not have to resign if she waits until 2006 to declare? If she doesn't resign as state rep. for LD 28 and she wins the CD 8 election, how is her LD 28 replacement chosen?11/27/2005 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Arizona law - if an elected official is in the last year of their term and runs for another political office, they do not have to resign their current position to run for the other office. Arizona's Legislative session runs January through May. All 90 state Reps. and Senators will be in the last year of their two-year term and are up for election. If one wants to run for another post, they simply do their job and eventually announce they won't be seeking another term. Hope this explains it in a "sycophantic" but simple way. Take care!11/28/2005 10:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|For TUCSONMARK--

I went searching in the Arizona Revised Statutes for the "resign to run" law and could not find it. Do you know the citation?11/29/2005 12:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|38-296. Limitation upon filing for election by incumbent of elective office

A. Except during the final year of the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office, whether holding by election or appointment, may offer himself for nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office.

B. An incumbent of a salaried elected office shall be deemed to have offered himself for nomination or election to a salaried local, state or federal office upon the filing of a nomination paper pursuant to section 16-311, subsection A or formal public declaration of candidacy for such office whichever occurs first.

C. The resignation of the incumbent elective officer duly filed in writing with the officer, board or commission having jurisdiction of the office shall, if not accepted within ten days, be deemed to have become effective as of the date of filing.

D. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a person whose resignation from office has become effective from qualifying as a candidate for another office during the unexpired portion of the term affected by the resignation, nor shall it apply to any incumbent elective officer who seeks re-election to the same office or to any other public office during the final year of the term to which he has been so elected.

E. A person violating any provision of this section is guilty of misfeasance in office and the office held by such person shall be declared vacant.11/29/2005 12:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Whoops, it's A.R.S. 38-29611/29/2005 09:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|For TUCSONMARK--

Thank you!!!11/25/2005 03:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|For some reason, I can't sleep. I could say it is because of my excitement over the possiblility of a race in District 8, but that would make me a total goon. Plus, it isn't actually true. I mean the excitement part. The goon part may be true. I thought I'd write a bit about some things to consider when you think about the candidates as they emerge: Resign to Run: Because of the "resign to run" law, remember that any current office holder has to be extremely coy about their intentions. You will not see the field of candidates "gel" until mid January. This means that candidates such as Randy Graf and Jeff Latas can build support while other candidates are forced to pretend they aren't running. It also means that they will probably not be able to get high profile endorsements while people wait to see who might actually declare. This can also work out well for the office holders too. Since someone like Steve Huffman or Ted Downing cannot legally declare for the office, they have the time to find out if they will actually have support before they declare, rather than declaring early and realizing in March that they can't even get enough signatures on their petitions. Legislators Are Not As Big a Deal as They Think They Are: In 2000, I was walking a petition for then-Senator George Cunningham, who was mounting a bid to run against Jim Kolbe. I got to a house where a man was reading the front page of the Arizona Daily Star. That morning, above the fold, was a story about the legislature, with a picture of Cunningham, who held a leadership post. I asked the man if he'd like to sign a petition for Cunningham. He said, "Who?" I told the story to Cunningham, thinking he'd find it funny. Instead, it just made him angry. One of our problems here in Southern Arizona is that the newspapers really don't cover the legislature. The stories that they run usually come from Howard Fischer, who writes stories for the entire state with no particular emphasis on Southern Arizona legislators. County officials are much more likely to be well known here. The role of county government in Pima County and the Counties of "Greater Arizona" is far more prominent than it is in Maricopa County. One Elaine Richardson supporter told me in 2002 that she would win the race against Raúl Grijalva because she "outranked" him, as if this is any sort of consideration in the minds of voters. This also applies to endorsements from legislators. Few of them have any sort of juice on the ground and can't move voters. The exceptions to this in recent years are the late Sen. Andy Nichols and Supervisor Ramón O. Valadez when he was a legislator. These guys both had strong community and organizational ties before they were elected though; neither built an organization because they were legislators. Interestingly, Sen. Gabrielle Giffords was a sort of local celebrity before she was elected, so she has the profile that could also make her an exception to this rule. If you want to find sitting legislators who have been elected to represent Southern Arizona in congress, you have to go all the way back to Lewis Douglas, who served in the 20's and 30's before resigning to write budgets for Franklin Roosevelt (quite a frustrating job, that). Both Jim Kolbe and Jim McNulty had lost races for higher office as sitting legislators, then were able to get elected as former legislators. Another piece of trivia for you: the last sitting legislator to be elected one of our US Senators was Henry Fountain Ashurst. To give you an idea how long ago this was, he was a member of the territorial legislature. Forget the Phoenix Media: I wrote a bit about an article in the Business Journal of Phoenix that detailed a list of candidates that seemed to bear only the most coincidental resemblance to the political facts on the ground. For example, they did not mention Supervisor Ray Carroll, who seems to be one of the two top Republican candidates right now. One has to remember that Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties are outside of the coverage areas of the Arizona Republic as well as most other Phoenix media. They do not follow our politics and know little about it. There also is an assumption on the part of both the Phoenix media and among some parts of the political establishment up there that serious politicians have to do some time in the legislature. Something to consider though is that a local elected official is here all 12 months of the year, often getting their face on TV. A legislator cuts out of the area to go up to Phoenix, and works largely in the dark from local media. Where Do You Live?: Short point here, but you don't actually need to live in the district to run for congress. Mo Udall's residence, for a time, was in Oro Valley, outside of then-district 2. Theoretically, a guy from Lake Havasu City could file. It would be silly, but things like this happen. Look for at least one candidate from the valley (this is one of two districts that include no part of it) to try to make a go of it.|W|P|113291763813788918|W|P|Some Things to Consider|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/25/2005 11:18:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Republicans are dreaming about Dr. "Quick Draw" Carmona as their ideal candidate, but Mayor Walkup appears to be a more logical option for them. He'll probably be sick of getting beaten up by the Dem. City Council and unlike the unknowns from the state legislature, he won't have to resign to run. Also, he's the only Republican who draws Democratic crossovers like Kolbe. The only reason he might not do it is quality of life issues related to flying to D.C. every week at age 67 - but he would be younger than most of his colleagues, so that may not stop him.11/25/2005 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Also, notice Ted's spelling of GRIJALVA - Grilava11/25/2005 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|It's fixed.11/26/2005 04:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The local papers do a horrible job at covering local issues and government. [Same goes for state issues and our southern Arizona state representatives.] I speculate that that is one of the reasons for the anemic turnout in the most recent City Council elections.11/23/2005 09:44:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It is fun being the guy that broke the story. They've got some anti-inflamatories so I can keep the swelling down. Anyhow, some candidates have already emerged, such as they can given the resign to run law. The Business Journal of Phoenix ran a story detailing who they think the candidates will be. Typical of Phoenix, they talked to Stan Barnes, someone who I don't think has ever been south of the Gila. Then they come up with a list of candidates that seems to have more to do with a checklist rather than any sort of knowledge of Baja Arizona politics. Let's see: prominent buisnessman, check, mayor, check. The article mentions Pima County Supervisor Ann Day, probably because of her sister, Jim Click and Mayor Bob Walkup. I'm sure that all three of these folks are happy to get mentioned. I don't think any of them are the least bit interested in running. They also mention Senator Tim Bee. I think that his brother, former Senator Keith Bee, would be more of a possibility. He has already demonstrated a hankering for higher office. The article also mentioned former Senator George Cunningham and Pima County Supervisor Ramón O. Valadez. Cunningham ran against Kolbe in 2000, and may be considering it. I don't think that he will do it in the end though, he may feel burned by his poor showing last time. Valadez is seen by many more as a future successor to Rep. Raúl Grijalva, and may be seen as too tied in with Southside politics to be a viable candidate in CD-8. I remember Valadez being mentioned as a congressional candidate way back in 1991 when Rep. Morris Udall had to step down. Interestingly, he wasn't old enough to run back then. Cunningham also floated his name then as well. No names from Cochise County have been mentioned. Douglas businessman Mike Ames has spoken about an interest in the seat before. The names of former office holders also seem to be floating through the transom, but I wonder how many of these are just names that enjoy being mentioned. Sen. Gabrielle Giffords is already being seen as the top Democrat. She's been talking about the possibility of running for a long time. Gabby, I love you, so here's some advice: don't start your campaign by mentioning that you were planning on leaving town. (CORRECTION) One suprise candidacy: Rep. Ted Downing. Downing has apparently already been making calls to measure support for a run. Downing will do what Downing wants to do. It is hard to tell who may be encouraging him or who might discourage him. An x-factor in the Democratic primary is Raúl Grijalva. Will he throw in behind one candidate or another? Is he looking to recruit an ally? CORRECTION: The reporter for the Citizen extrapolated some things that Sen. Giffords said. A more complete mea culpa is above.|W|P|113280988306471458|W|P|A Whole Pack of 'Em|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/23/2005 10:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It will be a Walkup v. Volgy rematch of '03 in the '06 general election - you heard this on Ted's blog first, as well. Although, you also heard the soccer player would be president of Liberia so you know how the prediction business goes....11/25/2005 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|In fairness to Mr. Barnes, he was born in Casa Grande.

He also does some work for SAHBA at the capitol, which does not quite put his fingers on the pulse of Southern Arizona politics, but it means that he is not quite as ignorant as the average Maricopan.11/25/2005 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|That picture is as scary as Dunbar's...11/26/2005 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Great Googly-Moogly!|W|P|Oy Vey! Ted Downing?

I hope he does run, because Gabrielle Giffords is going to hand him his ass in the primary, and we'll be rid of that pompous gas-bag once and for all. Well, once anyway. For all is probably wishfull thinking.11/27/2005 09:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Chirp|W|P|Ramon Valadez is seen by 2 people as a contender for District 7: Himself, and his papa Eckstrom. Unfortunatley, he's a long, long way from becoming anything except a shadow..11/23/2005 01:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Folks, you read it here first. Associates say Kolbe won't seek re-election|W|P|113277714622657526|W|P|Yep, It's True|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/23/2005 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|offical statement11/23/2005 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ted,

You are Da Man!11/23/2005 03:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|Wonder who Kolbe will endorse for his seat.

I am sad to see him go.11/23/2005 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|He's endorsing Bacal.11/24/2005 08:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|I'm afraid, with this GOP, and the type of voters that turn out for primaries, that an endorsement from an openly gay, moderate Republican is likely to be the kiss of death.11/24/2005 10:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I was quite curious if Carroll was thinking of higher office. Now it appears so.

On election night, I heard him on the John C. Scott as a guest. He was openly blasting Uhlich and Trasoff and was making fun of them. Then he left...only to later appear "glad handing" at the Democratic Party celebration.

Walkup was there too. Being a fairly popular mayor who can receive cross-over votes...and who is now the lone republican...makes me wonder if he is running for higher office as well.

It might be a bit more fun to run for Congress than to herd cats.11/21/2005 07:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Jim Kolbe is said to be seriously considering taking a teaching position at Harvard. Kolbe has been serving in congress since 1985. For the most part, he has been easily re-elected in a district that started as a swing district, but is now a bit more strongly Republican. Every two years, there has been a "this is Kolbe's last term" story, so I am taking this one with a grain of salt. Many a political career in this town has fizzled when they depended on the phrase, "When Kolbe retires..." (Anyone remember Mike Boyd?) If this turns out to be more than the political equivalent of "Vaporware," the cages at the zoo open up and all sorts of fun starts. Former State Representative Randy Graf is the immediate beneficiary of a Kolbe retirement. His nearly 43% showing in the last Republican primary is the chief reason why "Kolbe's last term" rumors have gained so much currency over the last year or so. Graf never stopped running, and if he even is able to get a large proportion of that support in this primary, he would be a shoe-in for the nomination. It is hard to imagine that Mike Jenkins, a frequent local conservative candidate who has voiced an intention to run, would be able to cut very far into his base. The most prominent of the moderate Republicans is Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll. Carroll represents the Eastern portion of Pima County, and has done a very good job of keeping his face in the local media. His chief moderate competition would have been Tucson City Councilmember Fred Ronstadt, whose wife has been a Kolbe operative. Ronstadt's decimation in the city council election would bar him from being anything approaching a serious candidate. There are numerous state legislators in the area that might be interested, such as Senator Toni Hellon and Representatives Steve Huffman and Jonathan Paton. All three can be considered moderates. If Hellon or Huffman make a go of it, it would obviate the knockdown drag out bloodbath that would otherwise happen in the Senate race there. Sorry Al Melvin. The Democratic side also raises some interesting possibilities. The district only leans Republican, but it is hard to see how a Democrat could win against a well known moderate Republican. However, it looks very possible for Graf to be the nominee. This means that all sorts of Democrats may think they can make a serious go of it. Francine Schacter and Jeff Latas get the short straw on this one. Latas is a combat veteran whose son has served in Iraq; this could have meant that he was going to be an Arizona version of Paul Hackett. With so many better known politicians in the race, it will probably be hard for him to raise his head far enough above to get noticed. The strongest possible candidate is Senator Gabrielle Giffords. She's a businesswoman that has already demonstrated an ability to fundraise. Her one problem might be that there are some segments of the activist base that are uncomfortable with her for her ties to Republicans. If she is able to win the primary, she would be an extremely strong nominee. Rumors put the name of 2004 candidate Tim Sultan in the mix. However, in the past Sultan has said that he is not interested, especially if it means running against Giffords. If Giffords runs, she would be vacating her Senate seat. This opens up the seat for Reps. Dave Bradley and Ted Downing to run against one another. This would be a fun race to watch (especially if the Hellon-Huffman contest fizzles). Downing has strong support among the activists, but has alienated many leaders in the party and progressive organizations because of his mercurial behavior. Look for former Mayor Tom Volgy to make a big noise like he's thinking of running, then make a big noise about not running. Jeff Chimene may enter the race as well if he is believes that there is not anyone sufficiently "progressive" in the race. Of course, this whole thing could be bunk. But without crazy rumors, what would blogging be like?|W|P|113263084082443321|W|P|Kolbe to Harvard?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/22/2005 12:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Is it now manditory for every candidate for national office have a photo op in a flight suit? At least Latas came by his by actually being a fighter pilot.

As for Latas' chances in the event of a Graf breakout, it think he might be able to hack it (little pun). He's a bit of a wonk (I just say him speak to a crowd of activist at the DPHQ and he used powerpoint :), but he definitely can speak to the mainstream every bit as effectively as Gabby can. He's developing a immigration policy counter to both Kolbe's work-release program and to Graf's final solution and he's got a refreshing clear position on Iraq.11/22/2005 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Giffords in the flight suit is perfect - that's exactly what we need, to replace one member of congress with questionable sexual orientation who votes far more conservative than they should with another of the same ilk. I'd rather keep Kolbe if that is the alternative.11/22/2005 10:39:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Who are these activists who support Downing? Every activist I've talked to thinks he's a blowhard jerk from a family that gets itself in one legal quagmire after another.11/22/2005 11:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The above comments are those of the readers and not those of R3, its staff or its advertisers.

Geez, y'all want to get me into trouble?11/22/2005 12:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim's just sayin...|W|P|Interesting how you studiously avoid discussing that last link in the food chain: who's in the running for the rep seat vacated by Downing and/or Bradley?11/22/2005 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I couldn't possibly comment.11/23/2005 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Prezelski in '06! Ted, not Tom....11/23/2005 01:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|Boom! Game on!11/23/2005 01:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I hate to beat you to the punch, but Kolbe just annnounced his retirement....11/23/2005 02:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|What are you talking about...I posted this two days ago.11/23/2005 02:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|You posted speculation, but not the fact until after you were anonymously told....11/23/2005 02:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Um...okay.11/29/2005 09:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|For--ANYONE OUT THERE

You've mentioned the open seat in LD 28. I wouldn't be surprised if LD 28 would have numerous aspirants for an LD 28 open state rep seat. But what about LD 26? No one has come forward yet who is willing to run for Huffman's soon-to-be-open LD 26 state rep. seat.

Know anyone [Democrat]in LD 26 willing to even consider running for state rep???12/01/2005 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|There is a progressive Republican, Lisa Lovallo, running for Huffman's seat in LD26.11/21/2005 07:36:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There is a big hoo-hah among us lefty and leftyish bloggers about Rep. Jean Schmidt's comments about Rep. John Murtha. Well, first of all, Schmidt didn't really say it, she was just quoting someone, so that makes it okay. Also, we are missing the larger point about Schmidt's comments. We need to admire the bravery of people like President George Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney who courageously send other people's kids into combat. Such daring! It is the stuff that toubadours used to sing about. The tales of Roland, Ajax and Arthur are nothing. Bush and Cheney give better speeches...and tax cuts. Seeing them strut makes me wonder what I can do to be that much of a man. Maybe someday.|W|P|113258457027530506|W|P|So, What's the Big Deal?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/21/2005 11:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|excuse me while I barf.11/21/2005 06:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Let's see, those who have specialized at sending other people's kids into combat-- those are the heroes now?

If that is the standard, why don't we just forget about the system and have a King? People like King George III, Louis XIV, Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Emperor Hirohito were all pretty good at that. Or, we could have a dictator, like Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. Or, perhaps with Cheney on board, the best of both worlds, a pseudo-dictator who pulls the strings of a monarch, like Otto von Bismarck. They all did a good job of getting millions of their countrymen killed while trying to build an empire.

We elect a Congress, which has the authority to vote or not for war so they will have the backbone to stand up to a President for an appetite for foreign adventurism. Just too bad that this Congress won't.11/22/2005 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|We can show W our support on Monday when he visits the Old Pueblo....11/20/2005 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I know that many of you know this story already, but I wanted to post a bit more about it. Back in July, two volunteers with the group No More Deaths, Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz, encountered three seriously ill border crossers. They gave the three of them a ride to get some help. They were stopped and arrested by the US Border Patrol. The two of them are now being prosecuted by the US Attorney for Arizona, Paul Charlton. The irony is that they are being prosecuted under statutes designed to go after coyotes, the sleazy people who are paid to bring migrants into the country, and often exploit them and sometimes leave them to die when caring for them becomes inconvienient. More agressive enforcement of anti-coyote statutes is one of the few things that people on both sides of the issue can agree on. I have heard of few cases of a coyote being prosecuted for being paid to pack two dozen aliens in a van and dropping them off somewhere near Menager's Dam to fend for themselves. But, we (this is being done in our name) are going after two people who wanted to get sick people to a doctor. There is a feeling from some folks who are inside the humanitarian aid movement that the US Attorney may be looking for a way out of this. The US Attorney is under a great deal of public pressure to drop the case, including calls from Bishop Gerald Kicanis. Since in so many cases volunteers had been allowed to give aid to sick migrants, there is some thought that some hothead was on duty that day and it's hard for the government to back down now. Which brings us to the concert. Tuesday after next, the 29th, there will be a "free" concert at Club Congress. Free, but they are suggesting a $5 donation, so you had better pay up. The concert will feature Tucson icons Al Perry and Howe Gelb (without Giant Sand), along with Space Fish, Tom Wallbank, Dj daddy, The Jons and Chango Malo. Ted Warmbrand (ack...) will also be performing. The money will be going to No More Deaths so they can help with the legal bills and continue to aid the migrants.
I haven't had any "Romanism" on here in a while. This morning's gospel reading was apropriate:
When the Son of Man comes in glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thisty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?" And the king will say to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me." Then he will say to those on the left, "Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, nakes and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me." Then they will answer and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?" He will answer them, "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me." And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25:31-46)
This is one of those portions of the Bible that Pat Robertson and crew has razored out. Although they'd probably happily point out that the goats are on the left and draw some poorly thought out political point from that.
|W|P|113250922257983722|W|P|No More Deaths Benefit Concert|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/19/2005 07:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Fun new rumor afoot is that Kathleen Dunbar is blowing this popsicle stand and moving to Prescott, probably for an eventual run for legislature from up there. Doesn't she have to finish suing everyone first? I don't know about the veracity of this story. She and her husband apparently have some property in the area, and Prescott seems to have become a popular place for Republicans to bring their carpetbags to. I'm so glad that Dunbar is as committed to the voters of Tucson as they were to her.|W|P|113245399763172467|W|P|Buckey O'Neill Would be So Proud|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/20/2005 11:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim has had it!|W|P|For pity's sake! We get the point! Will you please stop posting that godawful picture?11/20/2005 01:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez, Slim, you seem a little pent up about this one.

It looks as though it will be my last chance to post any picture of Kathleen, though.11/20/2005 06:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Can you just not use it for your dart board? Post more photos of hot lefties!11/20/2005 09:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|Can't she just move to Strawberry instead? She can still do a lot of damage from Prescott.11/18/2005 06:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've decided that my new favorite, well second favorite, congressman is Marion "That's with an 'E'" Berry from Arkansas. Here is his riposte to a snotty New Model Army Republican durring the floor debate on the cuts to social spending last night:
I'm absolutely amazed at you boys over there, I wonder what you are going to be when you grow up.
Berry went on to point out that it won't be people of his generation, but the generation of the congressman he was responding to (he was 31) that will suffer from these cuts. I usually am not into "ageist" attacks like this, but I really get steamed at the snottyness of many Republican elected officials of my generation. I'm glad that someone was willing to wipe the smug smiles off of their faces. Something interesting here: Berry is one of the Blue Dogs. You know, those Democrats that Bush said that he would work with back when he ran in 2000. It's been an undereported story, but Bush alienated these people in his first year of office. These guys have as much success working with the president as Dennis Kucinich does. Another Blue Dog is Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who lost his home in Hurricane Katrina. After a Republican attempt to gut Medicaid, supposedly to help Katrina victims, Taylor said:
This is the cruelest lie of all, that the only way you can help people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else.
I'm not justifying all of the votes that the Blue Dogs make, but those of us that consider ourselves "progressives" ought to remember that many of these folks have their hearts in the right place.|W|P|113236589512561668|W|P|Wow...My New Favorite|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/17/2005 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I never watch local television news anymore. In case you are wondering why, last night's ten o'clock edition of KVOA's Eyewitness News is exhibit one. The program featured a story that demonstrates two unfortunate trends in local programming. One is the need that they seem to have to use their news outlets to plug network programs. The other is the alarmist immigrant bashing that all three (three and a half, really) local television news outlets have been engaging in. Last night's episode of Law and Order featured a Minuteman-style group that ordered a hit on a coyote, and also killed several immigrants. I won't go into the whole story, but it suffered the same problems that the "ripped from the headlines" episodes often do: they had to go through some silly plot contrivances to make sure that the story actually took place in Manhattan. That way, they wouldn't have had to call Barbara LaWall to make a guest appearance. The Minutemen were furious at the ad campaign that used the name of their organization. They are the only people ever to call themselves Minutemen, I guess. They were convinced that they would be shown in a poor light. These complaints only fed into NBC's publicity campaign: now the show would be "contraversial" and "edgy." The Minutemen don't like it when you characterize their movement as "violent" or "racist." As soon as they demonstrate a willingness to cut ties to white supremacist organizations and excise the sadists from their group, I'll stop calling them "violent racists." So, Eyewitness News last night teased a story during the episode to show us how the Minutemen reacted. They could hype their news cast, and also, give these kooks in the Minutemen and their cause more airtime. I have been disturbed for some time by the local TV news outlets' love for this movement. I can't even remember which station did it, but there was a story last year about a supposed "islamic prayer rug" that was found with some migrants. The thing looked like, well, an ordinary rug. Maybe it was used for prayer, maybe not, so what? Of course, this "fact" got run by all the local news outlets as if to say that Osama bin Ladin himself was hiding out in Double Adobe helping terrorists cross. Pure hateful bunk. If someone has seen similar genuflection from one of our local TV reporters towards anyone advocating for a more liberal, or even reasonable border policy, please tell me. This is one place where I have to thank our dailies; you all know this is difficult for me. They actually deserve some props on this issue. The Tucson Citizen in particular has done a decent job of documenting the suffering of the migrants while also talking about the broader issues at stake.|W|P|113225955080913101|W|P|Pity those Poor Minutemen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/15/2005 06:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I haven't been in town for several days. I want all of you who live in Phoenix (and those that are advocating unrestrained development in Tucson) to spend a few days in Dallas and see a cautionary tale. I will never complain about Phoenix again. Well, I will, but not with the same fury. Just before I left, publicity hound Joe Arpaio floated his own name as a candidate for Governor. It is good he decided to do this, since no one else had brought up his name. Arpaio ain't gonna run. He's in a perfect place right now. He can act as though he is a "tough" law enforcement official, without doing much actual law enforcement. Witness his running to the press after Kurt Busch was cited for speeding. Joe, your deputy (not even you) pulled over a speeder. That doesn't make you Elliot Ness. I find it hard to believe that we would have seen a similar spectacle if Busch was pulled over by Phoenix police or the DPS. The print media gave only cursory mention of his statements, which tells me that even the Republic and the Star are tired of his antics too. Arpaio will not run because a run for Governor would mean that the press and other candidates (even other Republicans, who are not happy with him) will be looking over his record to find something. Heck, what is out in the air now would be enough. His actions have prompted multi-million dollar settlements against Maricopa County; he has used heavy-handed tactics to silence policital opponents; and his deputies seem to be no better than sadistic thugs. The local, and even national, press have been easy on him. In a higher profile race, that can't be expected. He will be dealing with press in areas of the state where he and his deputies have no power to intimidate them. Don't expect other law enforcement professionals in the state to help him either. They consider Arpaio to be, at best, a joke. The Political Insider column featured only a single paragraph about a possible Arpaio run. The authors said they aren't taking it seriously, since he had hinted at it twice before. Even the sycophantic Phoenix media know that this is just Arpaio trying to get his name in the papers. NB - The Phoenix New Times has an entire Joe Arpaio archive. The New Times is the only Phoenix area news source that has been keeping an eye on Arpaio, so their reporters are banned from all Sheriff's department events, even public ones.|W|P|113206238891393830|W|P|Hey Joe|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/15/2005 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|It is worth noting that Republican outrage against the Sheriff did not arise until AFTER he said nice things about the Governor. Prior to that, the long-standing problems in his office were considered non-issues.11/15/2005 01:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I find your use of the word "thug" in reference to anyone associated with Sheriff Arpaio to be offensive to all fanatical worshipers of the Goddess Kali.11/15/2005 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I think you underestimate Mr. Arpaio and he probably is the strongest candidate the GOP can trot out in either '06 against Ms. Napolitano or in '10 against Mr. Goddard.11/15/2005 09:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Desert Rat|W|P|Good post on Joe.

One thing he'd have on everybody in the Republican field is name recognition (and since Barry's last term ended 20 years ago, that includes Don Goldwater). I'll leave it to Republican voters to decide whether that's a good thing.

Re. your cautionary tale to Phoenix about Dallas, as somebody who has spent a fair amount of time in both locales, I'd suggest it's too late.

When you consider that the Phoenix Metro Area now basically extends to Anthem in the North, West of Buckeye in the West, to Casa Grande in the South, and well East of Apache Junction to the East, I'd suggest we're already there, and there doesn't look like an end in sight.11/15/2005 11:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well what would be a good term then Anonymous?11/23/2005 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Which of us anonyms are you referring to? There are at least three of us.11/11/2005 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'll be out of town for a couple of days, so please, no one make any news while I am gone. If anything in our local political world does happen, though, you can keep up with it all in the Tucson Citizen and Arizona Daily Star, or in our local broadcast outlets. Just kidding. Tony Cani has changed his old blog, Fear Itself, over to Wactivist. Wactivist is more of a full blown website than just a run of the mill blog, although the message boards are underused, well, not used, so far. I have dropped the link to Fear Itself and replaced it with Wactivist. One of the things that has happened over the past few weeks is that I have found out just how many people read this blog. I mean, I had an idea of how many people read it, but not how many people read it that are, for lack of a better word, "in" people. I have learned that a couple of reporters read this, and that it is read by political staffers both here and in Phoenix. Although, my escape from the litigation happy eyes of Kathleen Dunbar must mean that the readership in this crowd does not cross party lines. I got a call from Le Templar of the East Valley Tribune. He wanted comments from a Tucsonan about Tuesday's elections and J. D. Hayworth's suprising reaction to them. He knew about me through the blog. This now means that people are full of suggestions about what I should be writing. A couple of things strike me about this. One is that although nobody that has any understanding of the English language thinks I am anything approacting unbiased, I still would like to maintain a veneer of independence. All of you know my biases, but I think you all want to be reading what my opinions are, rather than my regurgitations of what someone else wants me to say. This isn't to say I don't want information, of course. Keep talking to me! Also, people are reading this because they like the style of my writing or want to read something they may not see elsewhere. I'm assuming that if y'all are reading this, it must be somewhat good, right? I don't mind constructive criticism, but the "here's what you should be doing..." suggestions make me wonder why so many people are reading it is as bad as the person making the suggestion asserts? Okay, that was convuluted. Anyhow, I'll be in Dallas until Monday, expect no updates. See you next week!|W|P|113173134436529311|W|P|Housekeeping and Other Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/12/2005 09:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|He wanted comments from a Tucsonan about Tuesday's elections

Why?11/12/2005 05:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez, Jane, here I thought you kept track of such things. We turned out two republican incumbents by two-to-one margins on Tuesday. He wanted me to relate those results to J. D.'s comments.11/12/2005 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous JaneAZ|W|P|Obviously, but it struck me odd that someone from the Trib wanted a Tusconian's perspective. After they told my husband for the last five-odd years that everything had to be done from an east valley angle.

We've got liberals up here, too!11/13/2005 10:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jonathan|W|P|I went to the Pederson rally with Barack Obama and took some photos, which you can view here here if you would like.11/09/2005 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I watched Law and Order tonight and Fred Thompson was barely in the episode. I guess all of the Republicans are in hiding. I've been reading the reactions to last night's results, particularly here in town. It amazes me that when Republicans lose, we are supposed to draw nothing from it. In 1993, when Republicans won in Virginia and New Jersey, we were supposed to see it as a tusnami. Similar results, and the Republicans say it's no big deal. No big deal that they lost in Virginia? After President Bush campaigned there and it still wasn't even close? Here, we are hearing the Republicans say that it was just because of the Democratic registration advantage. Yeah, but it isn't like they didn't know this when they started the race. Both of these Republicans had managed to pick up votes from Democrats before, what happened now? Kathleen Dunbar seems to still be forging ahead on the lawsuit, while at the same time complaining that this election proves negative campaigning works. Yes, and no one would know that better than Dunbar, since she has run some negative campaigns in her time, successfully, and, like this time, unsuccessfully. Towards the end, she made two rather bizarre hits at Karin Uhlich. In some appearances, she complained that Uhlich, being the director of a non-profit, took money from charitable contributions for her salary. Strange, especially given that Dunbar worked for the Humane Society, also a non-profit agency. The other attack was a bit more serious, but it was so clumsy no one noticed. She complained in her last mail piece that Uhlich lived in a cooperative housing arrangement with other women. The charge was done as a counterpoint to Uhlich wanting to change public housing policy. Yeah, I never said that it made any sense, and the whole piece was badly put together. Some folks, including some gay organizations, thought that this was an attack on Uhlich's sexuality. That may be, but the thing was so inept, who the heck could tell? Dunbar can complain all she wants about a "negative campaign," but Uhlich's attacks would not have been possible without her record of siding with big business over local residents. Dunbar was an incumbent, traditionally very few have lost, and could not manage 40% of the vote. That is all because of a letter that went out to a couple of thousand people? I don't think so. She needs to look at herself. The local Republican party also needs to look at its own grass roots organization. What the heck did they do in this election? I understand that at least one weekend walk was cancelled due to a lack of interest. The national situation may have left the Republicans demoralized, but maybe the incumbent's performance in office was less than inspiring for the Grand Army of the Republic. Judy White complained that the Democrats only won because of poor Republican turnout. Judy, whose job is that? Interestingly, the closest thing to grassroots activity on their part was some calls made to offices of local Democratic elected officials. Of course, the staff at an elected official's office can't do anything that even approaches electioneering. For some mysterious reason, pushy callers were calling different offices trying to get staffers to tell them how to vote in the city election. Given White's failed attempt to stiffle Paul Eckerstrom, this may have been a poor effort to try to nail people for electioneering on public time. By the way, this morning, J. D. Hayworth was on Don Imus saying that he doesn't want Bush campaigning for him. That's right, things are so bad that Hayworth doesn't feel like it's safe to invite Bush to Scottsdale. I've been doing this long enough that I know this won't last long, but can I bask for a bit?|W|P|113160118255219581|W|P|Yesterday's Results|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/09/2005 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*falls over laughing* boy Hayworth really IS scared that he might lose his seat.

But for Tucson-yay!11/10/2005 10:37:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|Is that a campaign announcement Elizabeth?11/10/2005 11:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|NO!

Larry would kill me.11/10/2005 01:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Larry Hagman is running against J.D.? His work on Dallas was OK, but he'll always be the Major to me....11/10/2005 10:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, Larry King but not the tv guy.

http://www.larryking06.com11/11/2005 02:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|While I was up late, or early, whatever, I saw this thing about Weah.11/09/2005 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to be totally anal retentive and try to give you a precinct by precinct breakdown of the race. Since this is available elsewhere, I won't bore you with that. I found some telling statistics. I never saw the final tally for early ballots, but the Democrats had a lead of about 3500 acording to the last numbers I saw. The initial numbers, which all came from those early ballots, looked like this: Uhlich (D) 15196 Dunbar (R) 10852 Trasoff (D) 16547 Ronstadt (R) 9671 Obviously, Dunbar had almost no crossover, at least in the early ballots. Ronstadt, on the other hand, not only had no crossover, but it looks like he lost the votes of even the Republicans. A Republican needs to win the East side big to overcome the Democratic advantage in the lower turnout South and West sides. Here was the race on the East side in 2003: WARD 2 VOTES Volgy (D) 35% Walkup (R) 63% Swanson (L) 2% Ibarra (D) 40% Rios (R) 60% Scott (D) 51% Jenkins (R) 49% WARD 4 VOTES Volgy (D) 36% Walkup (R) 61% Swanson (L) 3% Ibarra (D) 41% Rios (R) 59% Scott (D) 53% Jenkins (R) 47% Walkup and Rios were the two candidates in 2003 that were competitive (Walkup won narrowly, Rios lost), and you see what sort of East side numbers they had to pile on. Jenkins failed to carry either ward, but came close. He was defeated handily city wide. Last night turned out like this: WARD 2 VOTES Uhlich (D) 49% Dunbar (R) 51% Trasoff (D) 54% Ronstadt (R) 46% WARD 4 VOTES Uhlich (D) 49% Dunbar (R) 51% Trasoff (D) 54% Ronstadt (R) 46% As you see, Ronstadt failed to win even the east side. This means there were significant numbers of Republicans that didn't support him. Dunbar won the east side, but didn't post the numbers that would have stemmed the tidal wave from other parts of town. I guess her strategy of avoiding appearances in any other part of town wasn't so smart after all. Ronstadt and Dunbar won the east side in 2001 so handily that they could blow off the West and South sides when they became councilmembers. Uhlich and Trasoff, on the other hand, know that they have to count on East side votes as well. Hopefully, this means they will serve the city with a broader approach than the two people they are replacing. Couldn't be too hard to do.|W|P|113157873524481346|W|P|Mrs. Landingham, Give Me Numbers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/10/2005 09:07:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Uhlich won by twice as large a margin on election day (2-1) as she did on early ballots because of Dunbar's fully exposed insanity.

As for the pay raise proposition it lost by less than 1% - does that qualify for an automtaic recount?11/10/2005 10:36:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|Prop. 100 is still not finalized. It is losing by less than 1,000 votes with some 4,000 votes to be counted (provisionals, VBMS turned in on EDay, etc).11/09/2005 07:26:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, after I left, Mayor Bob Walkup showed up...and they let him speak. Geez, Paul Eckerstrom was in a magnaminous mood last night. I guess that's what victory does to him. I guess I should have offered to speak over at the Manning House. I don't think anyone would have stopped me.|W|P|113154656881382048|W|P|More Guest Appearances|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/09/2005 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|Levi Manning, of course, was a Democrat, and a fairly progessive one at that. Colleen Concannon, who owned the place and did the work of restoring it, once told me that she was convinced that Mayor Manning's ghost was still hanging around. Maybe he exerted his influence over the election out of frustration over the Republicans stomping on his turf.11/09/2005 10:55:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.11/09/2005 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Cool11/08/2005 10:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ray Carroll showed up at the Democratic Party's event. What was up with that? I didn't see Carol West there, anyone know if she went to the Republican event?|W|P|113151473682806182|W|P|Special Guest Appearance|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/08/2005 11:50:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Sugar Ray!11/09/2005 07:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Here's a strange one: when I worked for Gen. Clark's campaign, we had an election night party at the Chuy's on Speedway and Country Club. We had about twenty volunteers there.

And who shows up? Sugar Ray Leonard.

So, Sugar Rays show up at all sorts of random political events. Maybe Mark McGrath will show up at the next one.11/09/2005 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|And, Sugar Ray looooves the environment! At the celebration this year for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, and for the all the folks that made it happen, Ray shows up. He made a little speech about how wonderful enviros are. Go figure.11/08/2005 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the news stations flashed over to the Republican "celebration" at the Manning House. The place looks like its been neutron bombed. You know, I am kind of disappointed. Why didn't Dunbar ever sue me? I mean, I've been talking smack about her for a long time. Can't a guy get any credit? With 78% in, Uhlich 61%, Trasoff 65%.|W|P|113150847230505896|W|P|Morning at the Manning House|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/10/2005 01:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It's spelled mourning...11/08/2005 08:18:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Trasoff 63% Ronstadt 37% Uhlich 58% Dunbar 42%|W|P|113150647559998870|W|P|You're No Good You're No Good...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/08/2005 08:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|what is the % reporting?11/08/2005 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|That was with 72%11/08/2005 08:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|Geez, you know that when the yes vote for raising city council salary is at 49% that someone is not showing up to the polling booth.11/08/2005 12:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When I voted this morning, there was a Kathleen Dunbar sign at the polling place, but no Fred Ronstadt sign. Later, I gave a neighbor a ride to the polls and there was a Ronstadt sign. A nice one too, with stars and everything. Now we know where that campaign money has been going. Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly was on John C. Scott's show (can I just call him John Ulm?) and said this is the best grassroots campaign he has seen from the Democrats. Very true. The Republicans had to cancel at least one weekend walk with Mayor Bob Walkup because of a lack of volunteers. If this is a close race between Dunbar and Karin Uhlich, which I anticipate, then Uhlich wins this because of the near non-existent grassroots effort from the Republicans, and the fantastic efforts from the Democrats. And...the Barney bus...more on that later. Of course, I have been wrong about reading races before. For example, I saw that Nina Trasoff's phone bankers were getting ID calls in the primary that showed her beating Steve Farley by two to one. I thought, no way that's right. I mean, Trasoff may be ahead, but no way by that much. Then, she won by, uh, two to one. Non-party run phone banks are showing not much drop off among Democratic voters from Trasoff to Uhlich. This would mean not only a sweep by Democrats, but abject decimation of the Republicans. I don't think the race will be that much of a walk for Uhlich, I am more conservative. First time for everything. Get out there and vote, darn you!|W|P|113147854211734866|W|P|Poor Poor Pitiful Fred|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/08/2005 02:36:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Uh, thanks for the fix, now how about that turnout update?11/08/2005 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|How dare you disparage Zevon by associating his song with Fred Ronstadt!11/08/2005 11:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|So cautious Ted. Doesn't it feel great to be wrong for once?11/09/2005 09:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Zevon disparaged himself by letting his songs be associated with second rate Tom Cruise movies.11/09/2005 10:22:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|Don't say that about Warren, man. He's dead!11/08/2005 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A crew of Democratic volunteers who were doing a "visibility" event encountered one (that's one, you know, x to the zero power) Kathleen Dunbar "volunteer" holding up a sign. The woman said that she was not only being paid, but was suprised at how many people don't seem to like Dunbar. Wow, grassroots in action. More reports as the day wears on. Anyone seen Fred?|W|P|113146559128138919|W|P|Report from the Hustings|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/08/2005 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Rumour has it that he is in an undisclosed location with Cheney and Oprah....11/07/2005 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay...24 hours to go, well, 22 really, but 22 is just doesn't have the same implications. The papers have a "news blackout" on the city council races this soon before an election. Which leads me to wonder what their excuse has been for the last week or so. Heaven forbid that they give voters more information before they go to the polls. I mean, that would be unfair to the Republicans, right? I suppose if a candidate did something particularly egregious this close to election day, like I don't know, have her lawyer threaten to sue an opponent and her volunteers, that the papers would be more than happy to cover such a thing. I realized that it has been a while since I put a picture of Karin Uhlich up on this site. I went ahead and did that. So soon before the election, I gotta be positive and all. But negative is so much fun, and Fred and Kathleen have made it sooo easy. Here are a couple of positive things: The Democrats are up on returned mail-in ballots by about 3000. They have people on the streets almost constantly, as well as a phone banking operation that runs for about ten hours a day. In 2003, these things were also done, but the campaign wasn't as well organized, and Mayor Bob Walkup could count on Democratic crossover that just doesn't seem to be happening here to the same extent. I also don't recall the Democratic lead on mail-in ballots to be nearly as large as it is now. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been anemic. They have a scant three phones, which they have trouble staffing, and did no walking on Sunday. This may be poor organization, or the current messes with the Bush administration may be demoralizing their base. There has also been only a peep here and there from the "independent" campaign, not nearly the carpet bombing that defeated Tom Volgy and almost took out José Ibarra in the last election. Dunbar had a last minute "hit piece" against Uhlich. The piece was poorly put together, and included an allegation that Uhlich "lived in a cooperative arrangement with five other women" for a few years. This must mean that Dunbar and the Republicans are against sororities now. I have heard that Uhlich has a slight lead against Dunbar, but the race is still very close. If you want a good indicator, watch the first returns, which are mail-in ballots. If Uhlich can get a lead on those first ballots that is comparable to the Democratic lead on mail-ins, it means that Dunbar won't get the crossover that she needs to carry the day. CORRECTION (Sort of): It was pointed out to me that Dunbar hasn't only threatened to sue, but went ahead and filed suit. The suit was filed, but the defendants were not served, which leads me to believe that her attorney isn't serious, and that this is just an idle threat. We'll see what happens with this on Wednesday.|W|P|113137882980336284|W|P|24 Hour Party People|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/07/2005 10:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I think another important issue for voter turnout is going to be that of Leal's and Ibarra's ward voters. Will Leal's and Ibarra's ward turnout be good enough?

The Wards that benefit Republicans (save for West's) have an active race which might lead to turnout. In Leal's ward there is no challenger and Ibarra's and Scott's Wards have no election.

I wonder if getting rid of Vernon Walker was a real mistake. I mean I can imagine people crawling over glass to vote against him and for Leal.

This is my only real worry for the Democrats tomorrow...all else looks good for them and their hard work.11/07/2005 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Latest early vote totals...

If you are a political "junkie" like I am, you can find the updated early ballot return statistics at:


As of 12:30ish, November 7th, the Democrats extended their lead in early returns of ballots by a little over a 100. The lead is now by 2510, with 12064 Democrat, 9554 Republican, and a decent thousand or so of "others".

I did hear on John C. Scott today that the Republicans are calling their outstanding early balloters and telling them that they will pick them up for them at their house. The Demo policy was NOT to pick up and turn in ballots out of an appearance of impropriety.

I hope they have changed their minds.11/08/2005 02:34:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Did you deliberately remove the Hustings blog? Is there any other news from the front?11/09/2005 09:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|No, the "Hustings" entry is there...I don't know what happened. I got too busy to post.11/06/2005 10:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Al Capone never did anything wrong except tax evasion. I mean, otherwise, prosecutors would have found something else to indict him for, right?|W|P|113129873013983286|W|P|A Reassessment|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/06/2005 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|See and people think the IRS is bad.11/06/2005 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I checked the Arizona Daily Star this morning and spotted only two articles about the city council races. One was a piece reiterating the endorsements that the various candidates have recieved. If I may quote Truman Capote, that's not writing, that's typing. The other was an editorial reiterating their previous endorsements of Kathleen Dunbar and Nina Trasoff. In their re-hash of the endorsement of Kathleen Dunbar, they refer to the race as "particularly contentious." Particularly contentious? Is that all? Dunbar has threatened her critics with law suits. This sort of intimidation, which has been directed not just at political figures but at regular citizens, deserves a bit more scrutiny than this. I'll cut them a break. Maybe they didn't want to say anything about it because they are worried about them being sued themselves. I also read the news of the death of Chris Limberis, who wrote for the Star and the Tucson Weekly. Limberis had been fighting leukemia for a few years. I had my troubles with Limberis. I thought there were times when he let his own personal relationships and dislikes take over a story. However, he was also a tenacious reporter. His recent "Legal Briefs" series about the tangled web that is being unraveled by the Bradley Stidham case has been remarkable. For some reason, our dailies didn't seem to care enough to do something similar. I read of his death and thought about the lackadaisical coverage of this city council race, and I realized how much I'll miss him. N.B. - C. J. Karamargin wrote an piece a while back grousing that Democratic Senate Candidate Jim Pedersen had not yet made any appearances in Tucson. Pedersen will be walking for the Democratic candidates today. Karamargin will be there to cover it, right?|W|P|113129837499780468|W|P|I Guess Nothing Is Going On|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/06/2005 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am stunned at the lack of response of the local papers to Kathleen Dunbar's harassment of the teacher who dared to attack her...and to the lawsuit Vice-Mayor Dunbar filed in response.

Time and time again Kathleen has shown in public her temperament. If character means anything at all, this has to secure some "no" votes for Dunbar. This latest example is bizarre to say the least. I cannot believe that any principled republicans or independents could actually cast a vote for her. I also cannot imagine four more years of power for someone who could stoop so low.

To principled republicans and independents: You DONT have to vote for Karin Uhlich. Choose NOT to vote for Dunbar. I would be surprised if any could vote for Dunbar given her display of character.11/06/2005 10:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Erik|W|P|RIP Limberis.
I will never forget. He put me in the "Skinny" in the weekly March of 2004 about going to the DNC.

Will miss his commentary on the local tucson political scene.11/07/2005 05:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom|W|P|Don't forget that the Star last week ran a huge point-counterpoint editorial about the merits of wind power in Nantucket. Obviously, this was a critical issue to deal with one week before our elections.11/04/2005 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Tucson Citzen ran a "plague on both your houses" editorial that has unfortunately become all to common in our media. They neglected to mention the most important aspect of the spat between Kathleen Dunbar and Karin Uhlich. Too often, the media would rather observe an argument between two politicians and dismiss it as a "he said/she said" and not even try to see if there is an objective truth behind the argument. There are facts here that can be ascertained, but it is much easier to throw up one's hands and mutter "politics as usual," as if it is still clever to say that. They act as though the fact that Uhlich brought up a question about Dunbar's activities and motivations is somehow the same as Dunbar's heavy handed response. Yeah, they are all politicians, right? So, what is the real outrage here? Well, let's just for a second assume this is a political argument between two politicians and the voters must sort out a political question. Notice a key word there: political. This argument is supposed to be settled by a vote of the people. However, Dunbar has decided that she is somehow better than an average politician and cannot be criticised in the political arena. She has decided to sue for $1,000,000 alleging "mental and physical anguish." She is trying to settle a political argument using the legal system. She has done this to intimidate not only political figures, but even normal citizens for expressing an opinion. I would think that this would matter to journalists who cherish the First Ammendment. The Citizen's sister paper is suing over a Sheriff's Department Task Force meeting and the press's right to know. So, obviously they love to talk about press and speech freedoms when it is their own. I'm still waiting to see one of the papers editorialize against the intimidation of citizens in this matter.|W|P|113115451840022637|W|P|Citizen Misses the Point|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/04/2005 07:29:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Interesting experience a few minutes ago with Katy Dunbar. She was on the Imus/Cox/Collier show in the last half hour (6:30 - 7:00), and Nicole, Fred, and Don couldn't kiss her ass enough. [As an aside, the previous night, Fred I. opined that Kathleen "Couldn't lose fast enough" for his taste].

I called in an asked if she was taking questions. [I had intended to ask about the garbage fee]. I was told she was. I was transferred into the studio line, and after a few seconds I heard "no questions!" (don't know who said that) and the phone was hung up.

Seems Katy might be running a little scared, and doesn't want to hear from us citizens. As an aside, I was one of what (she claimed) were only 2 people who had sent her "hate mail" about her decision to sue. "Hate mail" is a bit of a loaded term, in my mind. Am *I* about to be sued now, too?

Or perhaps I should sue *her* for defamation and mental distress? This whole incident (to her credit she did reply to my email with a canned PR statement) is causing me a great deal of emotional and physical distress.11/04/2005 03:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A piece of mail appeared this afternoon in Tucson mailboxes:
Our current City Council - including Steve Leal, Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar - helped clean up filthy camps full of bums, panhandlers in medians and overly aggressive beggars. Kathleen Dunbar's challenger would like to bring them back.
This attack is based on the fact that Karin Uhlich has worked for a number of organizations that advocate on behalf of the poor. Most notably, she worked for the Primavera Foundation for nine years. By the way, that means she helped give the homeless job skills so they would not become panhandlers or aggressive beggars. So the logical leap is this (thus Batroc has re-appeared): Uhlich gives a damn about poor people, thus she wants us to be harassed by panhandlers. There are a number of legitimate policy differences that the people who sent this out, Tucsonans for Bipartisan Government (funded by car dealers and big landlords, the usual suspects), could have pointed to. Instead, they attack her for advocating for the most needy members of our community. In some ways, the alarmist tone of the piece could be seen as an attack on the needy. So much for "compassionate conservatism." By the way, Steve Leal has diavowed any sort of affiliation with these bozos. There isn't much he can do about it since they are an "independent committee." Leal is a standup guy who would never use our city's poor as a hateful political weapon. Note that there is no attack on Nina Trasoff here. I guess they have given up on Fred Ronstadt.|W|P|113114385711273404|W|P|Disgusting|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/04/2005 07:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|I simply adore the chubby-cheeked Ms. Dunbar.Is it true she's had liposuction? And where did the fat come from that gives her that adorable Squirrel-with-nuts-in-her-cheeks look?11/04/2005 10:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger judnag|W|P|Yes, Dunbar did have fat inserted in her cheeks and it got infected badly. It was during her time in the legislature.11/05/2005 05:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Thank you for the liposuction details...I am now ruined for the week.11/05/2005 10:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Infected fat? The things I learn by reading this blog...11/03/2005 10:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Kathleen Dunbar and her attorney are now claiming a specific amount of damage that political free speech has done to her. Yesterday, her attorney sent letters threatening lawsuits against the Amphitheater School District and the Pima County Democratic Party for $1,000,000 each. I know that I adopt a snarky, sardonic tone on this blog. But, in all seriousness, this is really disgusting. And, it is part of an ongoing pattern of behavior from the councimember. Take a look at this paragraph from a 2001 Tucson Weekly profile of libertarian candidate Jonathan Hoffman:
Hoffman's campaign has been overshadowed by the aggressive bantering between Aboud and Dunbar. A recent debate degenerated into material for America's Funniest Home Videos when Aboud, complaining of an amateur videographer in the crowd, began covering her face with papers while she responded to questions, while Dunbar got mad enough to threaten to sue her Democratic opponent.
I wasn't at this event, so I don't know what got Dunbar so up in arms. What this shows is that this latest spate of lawsuits isn't a reaction to the Democrats being particularly nasty this time, but a habit of hers. I guess it's easier to threaten to sue than to actually respond. It would be interesting to see whether or not she contacted counsel back then. That year, she also threatened to sue a group of employees at a women's shelter who raised money for Paula Aboud. True class. What happens when she loses on election day? Does she sue 35,000 voters? For a million each?|W|P|113108287500292247|W|P|Wow, That's an Awful Lot of Money|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/04/2005 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This is a cheesy way of getting money to make up for her loss next week.11/03/2005 09:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As I expected, Mary Peters announced that she is not running for governor next year. The announcement follows former Senator John Greene's questioning of Peters's eligibility to run. Peters claims that she was eligible to run, but she thought the questions would make her campaigning difficult. Well, they may have, but not nearly as difficult as overcoming Governor Janet Napolitano's approval rating. I still keep hearing from Republicans how Napolitano's policies are leading the state to ruin. If so, it should be easy to recruit a quality candidate. Their best candidates seem to be running, in the words of the former RNC chairman, like scalded dogs. I'll buy the Republican line for a bit. I'll assume for a minute that Napolitano's "socialistic" policies are ruining this state's economy, causing rampant illegal immigration and promoting tooth decay. Despite this, the latest polls show more than half of likely voters would vote to re-elect her. This could only mean that most Arizona voters are too stupid to know what's best for them. I know, it's that liberal media...yeah...the Arizona Republic and the Daily Star are taking orders from George Soros and hoodwinking our state's voters. That's it. Naw, can't buy that. Okay, here is my prediction: there will be no more Republican candidates joining the race. Not only that, either Sen. Greene or Judge Jan Smith-Florez will drop out before the New Year. What good is being a pundit if I can't make crazy predictions?|W|P|113108017742345198|W|P|I'll Chew You Up and Spit You Out (Kapitpuła Cwarta)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/03/2005 11:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Erik|W|P|WOW!! JUST FREAKIN WOW!!! OUR GOVORNOR KICKS ASS!!! SHE would win the State House in Texas with a photo like that. o11/04/2005 12:13:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous queriefaerie|W|P|tedski.. please..please... no more janet with BIG GUN pics. what is the fascination? girls with guns? is there something here you're not telling us?11/04/2005 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I've got a date
I've got a date
With a girl with a gun
Woah woah oh
Woman with a weapon11/04/2005 11:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted needs to get a regular woman in his life. I nominate um...Paris Hilton.11/08/2005 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|a regular woman, how about any single, available woman....11/03/2005 11:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I have been writing a great deal about Kathleen Dunbar's actions during this campaign and how they demonstrate a lack of respect for opinions and views other than her own. She seems to think that large segments of the community should just be ignored, and if they are still going to express themselves, that they should somehow be silenced. Luckily for democracy in our community, she is so clumsy about the silencing, that she just makes a fool of herself. Let me give you an example of an incident from several years ago. I sit on the city's Citizen Sign Code Committee. This means that I sit on a committee that suggests to Mayor and Council changes in the city's regulations regarding signs for businesses. In most communities, this would be handled by a land use or zoning committee, but for some special reasons involving a Life magazine photo from the 1970's (I'm not making that up!), it is handled by a separate committee. Anyhow, I am at work one day and I get an e-mail from the secretary for the committee. She is actually a city employee, and not a member of the committee. The e-mail was actually a reply to an e-mail that I didn't see, but the reply was "cc'd" to me. It said, if I remember right:

No, Ted is not an elected official, are you Ted?

Of course, this seemed very strange. It was only "cc'd" to me, the actual recipient had a city government address. I wrote back and pointed out that other than being a precinct committeeman, I was not an elected official. I told her that my brother is, and that may be why there is confusion. I asked why there was a question about this. She wrote me back and said that there was a question from Kathleen Dunbar's office as to whether or not I could legally serve on the committee because they thought I was in the State Legislature. She also said that the staff member that e-mailed her was a bit miffed that she communicated with me. This whole matter, the staff member said, was supposed to be "discrete." Of course, the height of discretion would have been to, I don't know, check my first name. As it turns out, members of the legislature can apparently serve on city committees. They don't because few of them would want to cut out in the middle of session to hang out in a basement meeting room to discuss the number of days a grand opening banner can be up. A couple of months later, my term was almost up. I received a letter in the mail thanking me for my service and telling me that I was ineligible for re-appointment because of term limits. I thought, okay, I've been on for a while, I was even chairman for a year. I'll move on. Then, I got a call from José Ibarra, the councilmember that appointed me. He asked me if I wanted to get re-appointed. I told him that I didn't think that I could. He said, don't worry about it. Turns out, there are term limits for these city committees. But, the statute says there is an exception for "technical committees." The list of technical committees is right there, at the top is the Citizen Sign Code Committee. I found out later that the city clerk's letter was sent at the behest of someone in Dunbar's office. The thing that makes this most bizarre is that I am in the minority of most of the votes of the Sign Code Committee. There are two other "pro-neighborhood" people on the committee, but they often cannot make the meetings, meaning I can't get a second to most of my motions. What grand danger am I causing by being on the committee? Just the fact that I expressed an opinion was enough of a reason for Dunbar and her supporters (both incidents were prompted by a member of the committeee) to think that I needed to be silenced. It is amusing in some ways, given how obscure the sign code is and how low the stakes seem to be, but also frightening. NB - This incident prompted the best retraction of all time. The Tucson Weekly wrote an item in the Skinny poking fun at Dunbar for confusing me with my brother. But, they messed the names up too. The next week, the ran a correction and said, "I guess we are as stupid as Kathleen Dunbar is."|W|P|113104559650704485|W|P|A Bit More Dunbar History|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/03/2005 09:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Erik|W|P|Dunbar! Ick!!

I was at safeway tonight on oracle/ina and ran into Fred. I almost asked if he was ready for Tuesday, then I thought about asking him if he found the applications ok at customer service. But I bit my tounge, put a smile on my cheek and walked right by him. We were both looking at spices. He is so disgusting.11/02/2005 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Judi White, Chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, is leveling all sorts of allegations at her Democratic counterpart. Up until Tuesday, these were confined to e-mails sent to Republican activists and supporters. Now, its out in public and she says that Paul Eckerstrom is "vocal and obnoxious." Well, yeah. That's what we pay him for. Well, he isn't actually paid, but you know what I mean. White calling anyone "vocal and obnoxious" is a little like Paris Hilton accusing someone of being an exhibitionist. She is always happy to get quoted in the paper trashing one Democrat or another. Just like Eckerstrom, this is part of her job description. White is also accusing Eckerstrom of misusing his position with the Attorney General's office. Eckerstrom is a political appointee, which means he can do what ever he wants, as long as his boss doesn't have a problem with it. This is the sort of thing that the Republicans never had any problem with when they controlled the Governor's and Attorney General's offices. It would be interesting to see if any staffers for Mayor Bob Walkup or Councilmembers Kathleen Dunbar and Fred Ronstadt, who are under much more severe city regulations, are helping out with the campaign. One thing that White said was particularly revealing:
The complaint is being lodged now, White said, because Eckerstrom has become increasingly "vocal and obnoxious" in the run-up to the Nov. 8 City Council election.
So, in other words, there is no problem with Eckerstrom being party chair, until he irritates White. As long as Eckerstrom kept his mouth shut, she didn't care. She's mad because he is willing to fight. This, along with Dunbar's quasi-lawsuits last week, seems to be part of a pattern on the part of the Republicans. Don't speak up for candidates or issues, or we'll file charges against you. These sort of tactics should scare all of us who care about democracy. It also means that the Republicans feel like they are up against the wall. Would they be calling the lawyers if they thought they were winning?|W|P|113099237371572019|W|P|More Silly Allegations Fly|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/02/2005 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|Indeed!11/04/2005 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Todd from North of the Gila|W|P|The provision the GOP Chair wants to enforce is 41-772 (B) which says:
"An employee ... shall not be a member of any national, state or local committee of a political party..."

You'd think she'd have a point until you read ARS 41-771 (B), which says:
"this article (i.e. 41-772) do[es] not apply to those positions determined by the director to meet any of the following criteria:
3. Persons who provide legal counsel."

Assistant Attorneys General, including Eckerstrom, provide counsel.

This was the same exemption used by two GOP state employees who ran for state legislature up here last cycle.11/02/2005 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star reported this morning that the Democrats are ahead on returned early ballots. Those aren't requests, but returns. The thing that is worth noting here is that most of our losing council candidates of the last decade or so have won on election day, but already lost because of the heavy lead that the Republicans established on early ballots. If we had a better early balloting program in the past, Mayor Tom Volgy* would be running ads asking voters to re-elect Councilmembers Paula Aboud and Gayle Hartman. It also looks like the Republicans are behind their previous absentee ballot totals. For example, Mike Jenkins, the poorest performing Republican in the 2003 election, recieved 11,516 votes, roughly two-fifths of his total, from early ballots. So far with a week to go, the Republicans have only cast 7,277 early ballots. This is not to say that all the Democratic ballots will be straight ticket Democrats, but it does give a huge advantage going into election day. In the past, Democrats have been happy with less ballots returned than the Republicans, as long as it wasn't too much less. The Republicans may be demoralized this year; there are plenty of distractions for them. Whereas the Democratic party has what one local wag has said is the best grass roots operation it has ever had. What you are seeing here is the residual energy built from last year's presidential campaigns. We were just building up the charge in the capacitor, now we throw the switch. NB - Although the common story among local Democrats is that Volgy won on election day 2003, this is not the case. Volgy narrowly lost on both early ballots and on election day. He came as close as he did because the party had a very good early balloting program that year. Given that he only lost by 3000 votes (about 2%), it does still lead one to wonder what would have happened with a program with the quality of this one. On the subject of the Star, I have added this blog to their forums section. Also, I have one last note on early ballots. I have encountered voters who seem to think that absentee ballots are only counted in a close race. This is not true. Until the 1990's, absentee ballots (as they were then called) were counted last. As such, often the media would only report the results of an absentee ballot count in a close race, where they would change the outcome. This seems to be how this rumor started. Nowadays because of changes in technology, early ballots are counted and reported first, before any election day ballots are counted.|W|P|113096346252499426|W|P|More Bad News For Dunbar, Ronstadt, and What the Heck, Vernon Walker Too|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/02/2005 07:22:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I never posted anything about the withdrawl of Harriet Miers. I was too busy being snarky about our city council race. I know, that was a huge disappointment to all of you. I wanted to write a piece of hyperbole like this:
This is the greatest capitulation of a president to the right wing of his own party since Franklin Roosevelt dropped Henry Wallace.
I couldn't figure out a good place to fit that one in though. Wait, I just did. The incident made me think of a couple of things. Despite the split in the political leadership of the Evangelical community, I saw little evidence that there was any opposition to Miers among actual Evangelicals. To the contrary, the one poll I saw reported showed that Miers had the overwhelming support of self-identified Evangelicals. This could be because they finally had one of their own nominated to the Supreme Court. The "fight" among Christian conservatives was entirely among political figures who were jockeying for position. In some ways, this can even be seen as a defeat for them. I wrote a while back that mainstream Christians should be offended by some of the rhetoric used by Evangelicals when they were trying to build support for Miers. Some of these leaders implied that Miers didn't really find the Lord until she abandoned Catholicism. Well, guess what guys, by taking out Miers, you not only left Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for almost an entire session, but now Bush has nominated a for real blood drinking Mary worshipper (just like me!). How does it feel to accidently eat one of your own fellas? The Washington culture seems to confuse some of these "spokespeople" with actual grass roots figures. Many of these organizations that these people represent are little more than fundraising organizations with little grassroots activity (the left is plagued with these as well). It is hard to say that someone like Gary Bauer represents any actual constituency, when his organization, American Values, seems to only solicit members opinions in a survey on his home page. This isn't to say that some of them don't have an actual following (Dr. James Dobson does, for instance), but the media gatekeepers don't seem to know how to tell the difference between a real spokesman and a political hack. Interestingly, this theme was touched on on this week's episode of the West Wing. In it, Democratic Rep. Matt Santos's staff is consumed with the threat by a pro-choice group to endorse Republican Sen. Arnold Vinick. Finally, Donna Moss points out to them that the vast majority of pro-choice voters will vote for Santos no matter what the Washington folks tell them. Sometimes these decisions are made for strategic reasons on the part of the organization or its leaders and have nothing to do with where the grassroots is. In the end, President George W. Bush could have probably gotten through a fight on Miers if she was in anyway viewed as a heavyweight. Bush called her "the best person" he could find. What does that make Sam Alito? Anyone remember Laura Bush saying that opponents of Miers were sexist? Since her husband obviously did not consider a woman this go around, does that make him sexist? Bush himself said that this was over not wanting to produce documents. The Evangelical leaders are claiming that they killed the nomination. So, are they calling the President a liar? I'm just asking.|W|P|113094277177595577|W|P|Thoughts on Miers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/01/2005 03:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was happy to see this morning that C. J. Karamargin wrote an article about the threats that Kathleen Dunbar's attorney, Steven Gonzales, has been making toward people for the horrible crime of speaking out about Dunbar's record. Gonzales seems to be a bit confused about the way political campaigns work:
"This is a well-timed smear," Gonzalez said in an interview. He said it was "really suspicious" that the issue was raised days before the Nov. 8 election.
"Really suspicious" that Karin Uhlich would question Dunbar's record? Isn't that what a challenger does? Gonzales seems to be acting more like a campaign spokesman rather than as an attorney working with actual leagal arguments. It is his own behavior in this that is "really suspicious." I don't buy that they are even the least bit serious about suing. If a political figure could sue everytime he or she thought bizarre allegations were being made, then Bill Clinton would be a billionare. The purpose in Gonzales's histrionics has nothing to do with the law, but to intimidate Uhlich's supporters and to change the subject from Dunbar's record on the council. I had two problems with the article. One is with the title: "Campaign Mailer Causes Ward 3 Uproar." The mailer didn't cause an uproar. Under normal circumstances, it would have just been another piece of junk mail that would have been thrown away by most voters. The uproar didn't start until Gonzales and Dunbar started talking about suing people. The other problem I have is with the tone of the article. A lot of talk about "both sides," as if sending a negative piece during a political campaign is somehow the same as having your attorney threaten campaign volunteers. I still have heard nothing from Dunbar's campaign denying the incident, mostly because she can't. You'd think that reporters and newspapers who love to cloak themselves in the First Ammendment would be a little more angry about an elected official threatening voters for exercising their freedom of speech. I find it a little disingenuous for Dunbar to be up in arms over this. She seems to think that she is beyond any criticism. Looking back at her past campaigns though, she has been plenty good at dishing out negative campaigning herself. She ran a television ad accusing candidate Paula Aboud of being a slumlord in her last campaign. She also made accusations directed at the wife of then-Rep. Andy Nichols in her unsucessful campaign for state senate in 2000. She is just frustrated to be up against a Democrat who has some fight in her. NB - I put up the billboard photo for a couple of reasons. First, any pictures of Dunbar seem to irritate a friend of mine. Second, Clear Channel has been involved in an ongoing lawsuit with the City of Tucson, and it is offensive for an incumbent councilperson to be giving them money for anything. Third, the billboard is located at 22nd and Kino. This makes it the entire Republican campaign for the Southside.|W|P|113088547419062579|W|P|Star Misses the Point|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/02/2005 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Ted...
Good post. FYI it's possible to link your blog to the new Starnet blog pages. I hope you'll do so for the sake of increasing your well-deserbed readership.11/02/2005 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Make that "well-deserved"
I imagine any conservatives who
look in are "well disturbed."11/02/2005 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Thank you for the advice, I went ahead and added myself.