The Nation had a reporter at the College Republican National Committee meeting last week. Which gives me a chance to put this fine picture of the aptly named Paul Gourley back up. I wondered if I was taking potshots at some young guy that didn't deserve to be picked on. Boy, was I ever wrong. I remembered hearing about this incident last year, didn't know the names though. Here is what Max Blumenthal reports about him:
Not to be outdone by his opponent's petty pranks, CRNC front-runner and University of South Dakota senior Paul Gourley was at the center of a controversial fundraising scheme. During the height of last year's campaign, a firm hired by the CRNC sent repeated solicitation letters printed on "Republican Headquarters 2004" letterhead to elderly Republicans, some of whom suffered from dementia. The letter urged recipients to pray over an American flag lapel pin, then send it back--along with $1,000--so George W. Bush could wear it during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The solicitation was signed by "Paul Gourley, National Director."Total bastard. A few years back, we had a similar problem with one of the myriad vice-presidents in the YDA. Guess what? She was quietly asked to leave the group. We didn't promote her to president. In the article, Blumenthal asks various gung-ho CRs why they don't sign up for the Army. After all, the President called it the most noble calling just a couple of days ago. Their answers are so, well...uh...creative, that I can't do them justice by picking out a quote here or there. In the interest of equal time, Christopher Hitchens has an article in Slate where he argues that this whole notion that decision makers may have different ideas of sacrifice if their own are the ones being sacrificed is silly. I guess he doesn't understand why the wealthy and powerful should pay the same price as the rest of us. Does he still consider himself a lefty? The overt racism and hate from some of the speakers at the CRNC leads me to something that I have always wondered with folks envolved with the CRs, YRs, YAFs and all other sorts of groups. I remember when I was at the U of A, and encountering some of these guys. Many of them did not know I was half-Mexican, they'd say the spew some of the most bizarre racism that I've ever heard. Heck, one of them that I knew proudly showed me his graddad's KKK necktie. I always think, well, they can grow out of it. Obviously, this sort of thing is not frowned upon by the speakers at these meetings. So, how can they grow out of it if no one ever says that it's wrong? The kid I knew with the tie, last I heard he works for a congressman. Nothing indicates to me that he has ever changed his mind. Heck, why would he? The one thing that offended me was the title "Generation Chickenhawk." Are they indicting an entire generation of people because of a few pampered elitists at a meeting in Virginia? It's an insult to the thousands of young people who have signed up.
I also wanted to follow up on one of my first posts. One of the things that's nice on the Cochise County Board of Supervisors is that there are only three members. This means that you can go from being a lone voice in the wilderness to majority in one fell swoop. Well, not quite that simple.
You may recall that Supervisor Paul Newman had some serious questions about an incinerator that is being built near Whetstone. He has kept on asking questions, and now it looks like his fellow supervisor, Richard Searle, has changed his mind. Now, there is only one vote, Pat Call, for the project. This will probably keep going for a while, but it looks like the good guys are winning.
One more item: I was totally disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case. For those of you who don't follow these things, the City of New London was trying to use eminent domain to force residents of a working class neighborhood out so a private firm could develop the area. We may not like that neighborhoods get bulldozed, but we swallow it when it is for a public use. New Haven argued that the public benefitted because there would be increased tax revenue. Well, that can be argued about just about every neighborhood. For some reason, the Supremes agreed.
Well, a libertarian group called Free Star Media has there own ideas. Yeah, they are whacked out libertarians, and they love Ayn Rand way too much. But, this is brilliant. Check it out.|W|P|112018998650662974|W|P|A Couple of Updates|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This was a great column Ted!- Caring For "The Least Of These" - Pursuing Economic Justice
- Caring for the Earth - Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today
- Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity - Equality for Gays and Lesbians
- Honoring the Sanctity Of Childbearing Decisions; Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion
- Forsaking Brute Power - Seeking Peace, Not War
- Extending Healing to All - Health Care for All Americans
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think it is because Democrats are way more respectful of the seperation of church and state.
|W|P|Personally I think it is always a bad idea to start separating people into "religious" and "secular" categories. It's just another wedge as far as I'm concerned. "Secular" people are frequently the most rabidly dogmatic. Take your activist friend (please!) who wouldn't vote for Clinton because he quoted from the Bible - you should have asked her what she thought about Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez.Our modern secular religions - science, nationalism, capitalism, Hollywood - all have their founding myths, their icons, their priests, their saints, their devils, their sacred cows, and their pig-headed zealots. America in particular, I think (maybe it's just being so close to it), has a Jesuitical streak that runs through just about everything, no matter what side of what issue you look at.
I do think that grassroots activists have every reason to distrust big religious institutions of every stripe, but I also think that people who can't find inspiration in the Bible - one of the world's great literary works - are either ignorant (haven't read it) or extremely unimaginative.
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) remains, to me, the most intriguing, ironic, inspiring passage. Here we have Jesus telling a man how to achieve salvation, and the crux of it is, the Samaritan - a heathen - acts not out of religious obligation, but simple human compassion. There is nothing faith-based about that. That's my Jesus: after 2000 years still misunderstood by Christian and Atheist alike.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|America has always been a land of Religion and extremists. My favorite professor in college was a guy named Dr. Chris L. Smith who told one of the classes I had with him that the every so often America goes through these revivals where have a lot of fire and brimstone and then afterward people look at each sheepishly and say "uh did we do that?"A couple of left-leaning websites managed to get pictures of some young conservative events. Campus Progress got some photos of the College Republican National Committee meeting in Virginia. This one is my favorite. Don't ask, don't tell...
Actually, I shouldn't say that. "Don't ask, don't tell" only applies to people who actually sign up for the military, not for the folks who think patriotism is putting a "Let's Roll" bumper sticker on the Japanese-made SUV that mom bought them.
A group called Fix Our Future, which seems to be a Washington based anti-Social Secutiry organization, organized a "rally." Hard to tell whether or not they are against Social Security or for Bush's plan, they probably don't know either. A fellow (or fellee?) named Progrev has posted some photos. My favorite is the guy below. I think I understand the argument now: without FICA taking that big chunk of his pay, he wouldn't be so underfed.
Maybe these guys have been breathing too much of the Republican air in the District of Columbia, but I thought that Bush's plan was kaput. The only people that don't know are Bush worshippers. Putting on events like this, well, I believe the scientific term is post-mortem equine flagelation.
One actual story struck me today. Apparently, Rep. Tom Davis has threatened to strip Major League Baseball of its anti-trust exemption if George Soros buys a piece of the Washington Nationals. What the heck? Have things become so partisan that you can't even own a baseball team if you have the wrong politics?
The stated objection is that we can't have a partisan figure owning a baseball team. Um, who is that guy that used to own the Texas Rangers?|W|P|111991627134740150|W|P|But, They Make It So Easy|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Paul Gourley? Do you pronounce that like 'girly'? |W|P|Cheap comment about the guy in the yellow t-shirt. What's that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black? I seem to remember a certain Czech jersey...... Tedski|W|P|Yeah...and I have about 14 years on that guy.
Jackson would be the first Native American to represent Arizona should he win, but the second openly gay congressman, although Rep. Jim Kolbe didn't come out until he had served several terms. I think that Jackson would be the only Native American in congress since Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell left office.
It is hard to know if the "gay thing" would be a problem for him. Also, in some of the areas of the district there is tension going on between anglos and native americans over water issues. If Jackson thought that either one of these things was going to sink his candidacy, he'd choose not to run at all. I don't know him that well, although my brother seemed to enjoy working with him in the legislature. He doesn't strike me as a guy that would just do this on a lark. If he's going to do it, it's only after he's figured out a way to win.
(NB - Thanks to Jane at Arizona Congress Watch for the heads up on this. I also found an article in the Navajo Times about a possible run by Jackson.)
The candidates are now lined up for this year's city council election. The candidates turned in their nominating petitions this week. Some of us who follow this way too closely like to look at the number of signatures and try to read something into them. The number of signatures turned in can tell you whether or not a candidate has a decent organization. It can get a bit more complex than that, for example, a candidate can pay signature gatherers and not have any grass roots support. So, take what you will from these numbers.
In Ward 3, a Democrat needs 271 signatures, and Karin Uhlich turned in the maximum, 541. Republican incumbent Kathleen Dunbar needed a minimum of 145, and turned in 245, 1 and 2/3 times what she needed.
In Ward 5, long time Democratic Councilmember Steve Leal turned in his maximum 422, he only needed to turn in 211. His opponent Vernon Walker only needed turn in 58 (!), he turned in 102, just shy of twice what he needed. Expect there to be a challenge, given the low number of signatures involved.
Both Democratic challengers in Ward 6, Nina Trasoff and Steve Farley, turned in the maximum of 872 signatures, twice the minimum. Councilmember and Oprah Guest Fred Ronstadt had to turn in at least 234, but turned in 350.
In each case, the Democratic candidates collected far more than the maximum, they just didn't turn them in (signatures over the maximum can't be considered for filing). This gives them a chance to go through their petitions and make absolutely sure they are only turning in good signatures. Not so with the Republican candidates. Expect their petitions to be looked over and at least one attempt to get a candidate bounced from the ballot.
Wouldn't it be awful if Dunbar or Ronstadt couldn't run for re-election? One can always hope.|W|P|111983326971290562|W|P|What, Chip & Robbie, Nothing Happened This Week?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|How come CD-1 is still considered a swing district? Tedski|W|P|Well, George Cordova almost pulled it off despite the problems with his campaign. The thing that they need to do is find someone the "pinto" democrats would vote for. |W|P|Hey Elizabeth,Did you get one thin dime from the AZ Democrats/ DCCC in 2004, or did they throw it *all* into CD1? I hope they don't repeat that in 2006. Renzi is going to be extremely well-funded and hard to outfundraise.
Here's hoping they spread around the dough a little more, as Dean says he'll do. There are a lot of deserving candidates, not just one.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, I did not get any money out of the Democratic Party: locally, state, or federal. No assitance with fundraising and I got the final brushoff from Waide (not that he could do much anyway) a few weeks ago. That is why I asked why CD-1 is considered a swing district when despite ALL the money that Paul had (I looked at the FEC reports and he had a million less then Renzi but still over a million) he did not break 100K votes. I had only $4,000 and we broke 100K votes. CD-5, in my opinion, should be considered the biggest swing district in the state. And the second would be Randy's because I think if he tries one more time and got signifgant resouces...He could win. Oh well. Tedski|W|P|Randy?Gawd...I hope you aren't already refering to CD-8 (my district!) as Randy Graf's.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No way in heck! I was refering to Randy Camacho! CD 2 |W|P|It would be interesting to see Weiers get bumped into a blue district, which is all the more reason that I think he'll run for governor. The good ole boys who run the state GOP aren't going to sit back and let a pro-choice moderate Republican like John Greene go up against Janet. Weiers would be their man. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You could always turn them into zombies. They would not get any work done but they seem to be not getting any done anyway.I happen to be watching Shaun of the Dead and maybe that is why I thought of the admittedly impractical idea.
|W|P|I am going to jump in late here (I just returned from my nephew's wedding in the cyber-free zone of Lake Tahoe) with a radical proposal: the political make-up of the legislature should reflect the political make-up of the voting public. In other words, representation should be representative, or if you like, proportional. Yes! That's right, you heard right! I'm proposing Proportional Representation! DROP THE LATTE AND PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR, COMMIE!! I realize this isolates me politically (it's just me and every industrialized democracy except the US and GB), but criminy - when are we going to get fed up with politicians (and "independent" commisions) picking our reps for us and get serious about democracy? Tedski|W|P|Actually, I'd be for one house being chosen this way, and we can leave the other house still being chosen geographically. I think Japan does something similar. |W|P|Catholic's Girl's Bad Catholic site? HAHAHAHA! Oh Ted, I think you might be one of the 4 horsemen! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Have I told you that I knew Teresa Ottesen in high school? And she forced her way onto the football AND wrestling teams? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Not really. Just something about her that I could print in public. I am trying to flip her to being a Dem.
Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manilla died monday. Sin led the overthrow of not one, but two corrupt and oppressive governments. Sin was one of the leaders of the church in the 1980s, along with Cardinal Józef Glemp and Archbishop Oscar Romero, who defied orders to stay out of politics and use the weight of his office on behalf of the people. The gospel says this:
“But those, who for love of me, uproot themselves and accompany the people and go with the poor in their suffering and become incarnated and feel as their own the pain, the abuse – they will secure their lives, because my Father will reward them.”The easy thing to do, especially when you have a high office, is to make and keep friendships with the powerful. The hard thing to do is to work for the people that feel beat down. This gets back to the thesis I often get back to: that too many people use their religion as a way to confirm prejudices that they already have and justify whatever way they are living. I thought of this as they announced the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen yesterday. Killen was acquitted years ago because, in the words of one juror, he was a preacher. A preacher who apparently saw his role as helping the powerful opress people.
I'm willing to cut the jury a break for their reluctance to convict for manslaughter. I've been on a jury for a murder case. It's hard for people who haven't been on a jury to understand the trememendous weight you feel in that room. I can see them being reluctant to convict an 80 year-old man of murder, so they bumped it down to a lesser included offense.
When Killen's attorney heard that the jury was split 6-6, I think he thought that it was six to acquit. The South has changed an awful lot.
Unfortunately, not enough. I guess that there are still enough people that don't get it that it is actually politically risky to acknowledge what used to happen. For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu (who, in my perfect political world, would be a presidential candidate...) introduced a resolution last week to acknowledge that the senate was wrong to block anti-lynching legislation. Landrieu managed to get herself and 88 co-sponsors for this bill. Notable are the absences from the list. Sen. Jon Kyl of our state, couldn't see fit to sign on (Sen. John McCain did). Neither Senator from Mississippi, the state where Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman were murdered, signed on. So, those appologies to the black community a while back were hollow after all, eh Sen. Lott?
What amazes me about this is that this is merely a resolution, a piece of paper, just words. There is absolutely no policy impact of this. This should have been an easy thing to do. But, I guess Lott, Kyl and company are worried that the guys in the white sheets will stay home on election day if they acknowledge that sitting by while citizens were murdered for the color of their skin was a bad thing.
(NB - In doing some research for this post (yeah, I actually do some...) I found two blogs, Catholicism, Holiness and Spirituality, and Bad Catholic. I haven't decided whether to add these to the blog roll, but check them out.)|W|P|111941818408923867|W|P|Cardinal Sin|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Former Congressman Sam Coppersmith has added Rum, Romanism and Rebellion to his links. It actually is an honor, and that's not just me trying to puff him up.
I worked on Rep. Coppersmith's senate race back in 1994. Unfortunately, he got spanked by Jon Kyl, who will get spanked next year by Jim Pedersen (shh...he's not running yet...). Coppersmith was a remarkable candidate. I never saw the man talk down to any audience. On the other hand, Kyl ran a singularly shallow race. You could have looked at all of Kyl's ads and you would have never known that the man spent even one day as a congressman. No, I'm not still bitter.
The best line during that campaign came from Dan Brito, who volunteered for the campaign (I think I recruited him) and now works for Congressman Grijalva: "That Kyl, he is such a tool."
We did carry Pima County though.
Sam would have been a rarity in the US Senate, a man with a mustache. Only one Arizona Senator has had a mustache: Republican Ralph Cameron, who served one ignominous term in the 1920's. Sam and California Rep. Ed Zschau are the only two recent major party candiates with them. But, he was part of a great tradition of mustached Arizona congressmen. (Our three since statehood are pictured here. All of the congressional delegates elected before statehood had mustaches.)
Yes, a very non-substantive post. I'm entitled. I'll get back to complaining about Jim Weiers and Fred Ronstadt later.|W|P|111932892860788266|W|P|Just a Short Note|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Actually, Ralph Cameron was NOT the only Arizona Senator with a moustache. Cameron's chief political nemesis, Democrat Marcus A. "Mark" Smith was also famous for his facial hair. Smith served as U.S. Senator from Arizona from 1912 to 1920 when he was defeated by Cameron (it was Cameron's fifth match-up against Smith, and the second one he had won). Smith was a very important political figure in Arizona, having served in one elected office or another for most of the period between 1884 and 1920, and being the spiritual leader of the more conservative "Cleveland Faction" of Arizona's Democrats. You should know that.You did get it right that Cameron was a bozo, however. On his last day in the Senate, his fellow Senators dissed him by roundly applauding his departure. He was replaced by Democrat Carl Hayden and would the last Republican to Represent Arizona in the Senate until Barry Goldwater was elected in 1952.
Tedski|W|P|Point taken...I put Mark Smith down as a mustached house member, but failed to note his service in the Senate.Big bozo...
|W|P|Did you just call you brother a big bozo? Tedski|W|P|Did I do that? Hmm... |W|P|I think he was talking about Cameron again. |W|P|Sam Coppersmith is a good guy. I remember him quite well from his run for the Senate and his time in Congress. We'd have been a lot better off if he'd beaten Kyl.I feel quite fortunate to live in the extreme north end of Raul Grijalva's district (which ends about 4 blocks north of me in Avondale. Congressman Grijalva gives me great hope for the future of the Arizona Democratic Party. A true progressive voice in the House for us.
|W|P|I cant believe you mentioned Brito!
The Republicans are still having trouble recruiting candidates to run against Governor Janet Napolitano. I keep hearing that they reign supreme in this state, with their five-point registration lead and all. It's become so funny that it's actually a bit sad that a major party can't find anyone to run.
The latest person to snatch his hat from the ring is former Congressman Frank Riggs. You don't remember Frank Riggs? He served Arizona residents as a congressman for three terms from...Santa Barbara. That's in California for those trying to figure out if that's in La Paz county. I doubt anyone even knew that he lived here now, let alone was planning to run, until an article in this morning's Arizona Republic said that he decided against it. Well, actually, he couldn't run. We have some strange obscure law that says you actually have to be an Arizonan to try to run for Governor. (NB- The Republicans love carpetbagging, don't they?)
Riggs is yet another in a long list of names, including former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley and Congressman J. D. Hayworth, Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, and even actor Rick Schroeder, who is apparently leaving the state. Maybe those desperate midnight calls from Matt Salmon finally got to him.
I think that I said before that Surgeon General Richard Carmona would be the next "hopeful" to say no. Heck, how was I supposed to know about Riggs?
The names of Carmona and former Second Lady Marilyn Quayle (I don't think anyone says "second lady", but hey...) are still floating in Republican circles. I don't see either one of them trying to do it. Napolitano is inassailable. Napolitano has been offering the people of Arizona a choice: her way or the way of the legislative leadership. The leaders of the legislature are so far out of step with the public, and even with the buisness leaders that fund Republican campaigns, that there is really only one choice.
One possible candidate is testing the waters. House Speaker Jim Weiers has been hitting the road telling everyone what a big liar Napolitano is. He is still miffed that the Governor vetoed the tax credit for corporations that gave to private schools. Napolitano says that Weiers lied to her since he promised that there would be a sunset clause, a normal thing for such bills. The sunset clause did not appear, so Napolitano vetoed it. Well, Weiers is still miffed about this "lie." Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was a lie, why did your people tell the Democratic members that the sunset clause was in there as promised?
(NB - Mr. Speaker, a good way to build bridges would be to avoid thinly veiled racist comments when legislation needs to be hammered out. Just a piece of unsolicited advice, from me to you.)
No need to worry. Although there hasn't been any polling, at least none that is public, since the veto, it doesn't seem to have had any effect on her popularity. The press is presenting the "lie" issue as a he-said-she said. Maybe, but give the people the choice between the hard-right close minded leadership of the legislature, and a governor who has been standing up for them, the people believe the governor.
Rep. Steve Huffman may want to put his plans to challenge Sen. Toni Hellon in the Northwest side District 26 on hold. Huffman is terming out and he needs to either go up or out. They are both in the same "suburban Republican" mold and it wasn't shaping up to be ideological. I mean, it may have been ugly (and fun to watch...) but not ideological. Now, a fellow named Al Melvin has entered the race. That's right, his name is Melvin. Melvin is an associate of former Rep. Randy Graf and his web page features a shot of him with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, so that should tell you what wing of the Republican party he is from. The worry up in the country clubs is that Huffman and Hellon split the moderate vote, and that Melvin gets elected. We'll see how it goes...
Melvin has already refered to Rep. Johnathan Paton as a "little bastard," one can only imagine how he will be with Rep. Pete Hershberger.
Paton's reserve unit is about to be called up, possibly for duty in Iraq. Nice to see a Republican like Melvin be supportive of our troops, I guess that doesn't apply if they are "RINOs."
I met Paton several years ago. I can't remember if he was the candidate and Scott Kirtley was his campaign manager, or if it was the other way around. He may have trouble keeping his face off of TV, but I don't consider him a "little bastard."
Chris Limberis ran a hatchet job in the latest issue of the Tucson Weekly on local business leader Lea Marquez-Peterson. I have never met the woman; I only know her as someone involved with a number of community activities. I read through the article, all I saw was a list of things that happen when someone owns several businesses. Yeah, she went bankrupt, BFD. I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. Once again, Limberis seems to be attackingsomeone more for who her friends are (Raúl Grijalva, Dan Eckstrom, Ann Day...) than anything substantive they have done. I think that Limberis is a good reporter, his reporting on the Dr. David Stidham murder and the follies in the County Attorney's office have been excellent. The trouble with him is he gets on these personal vendettas that poison his whole outlook. His animus towards Raúl Grijalva may have even poisoned Elaine Richardson's message during the 2002 primary, preventing her from getting any sort of momentum. I realize that all of this about Marquez-Peterson is public record, but why rehash it when this woman hasn't hurt anyone? Heck, she isn't some bozo like Bob McMahon.
Hey Chris, whatever happened to that sexual harrasment lawsuit you were going to file against Sharon Bronson?
I'm such a little bastard, ain't I?|W|P|111924399249347315|W|P|Run Run Run|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Actually, you DO know Lea Marquez. She was involved in SUAB at the same time you were. |W|P|I was going to echo this comment, apparently Ted has forgotten his days at UofA altogether, altough I believe there were quite a few of them.... Tedski|W|P|Oops.
Former U.S. Representative Sam Coppersmith has a blog called Liberal Desert, which consists of editorials he writes for the East Valley Tribune. I worked as a volunteer in Coppersmith's 1994 U.S. Senate race against Jon Kyl. Well, we lost, but what Democrat won that year? Coppersmith spent only one term in congress, representing the most conservative district in the state. Matt Salmon was his successor, if that gives you a bit of a clue how conservative. His term in congress was an interesting one. Basically, he was the sort of Democrat that the DLC loved when they were still interesting, before they became yet another whiny pressure group in our party. He was tough on budget issues, but he also looked for programs that were wasteful but environmentally detrimental as well. He managed to get Republican budget hawks (there were some back then, it wasn't so long ago) together with the environmentalists and managed to kill some programs. This week's post is an excellent criticism of the Proposition 200 law. He didn't include this stat in his article, but apparently a grand total of four aliens have been "caught" because of Prop. 200.
Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a story about the new class of summer interns at the Heritage Foundation. I found out about this article in the &c blog on The New Republic site. &c seemed to be most struck by the fact that one of these New Model Army types voiced her yearning to be a pharmeceutical lobbyist. It really doesn't suprise me though. Money will always trump ideology for the careerists.
The thing that struck me the most was this:It is an alternative with few rivals. The Brookings Institution, a centrist group more than 50 years older than Heritage, has no paid interns. Neither does the Progressive Policy Institute, which promotes a centrist version of liberalism. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a premier antipoverty group, has 10 paid interns. People for the American Way, a bulwark of Beltway liberalism, has 40 - but no dorm.As much as it's easy to make fun of the conservative geeks that are pictured in the article, you can at least say that the conservative movement is taking youth seriously. I often hear that we on the left don't have the same cohesive network of think tanks and pressure groups. One of the reasons is that these guys bring in their people early. The young folks are networking before they even have serious careers. It wouldn't be that hard for Brookings or PPI to do it. Instead, we have these nearly useless wank fests like Camp Wellstone and get our asses kicked. |W|P|111901778742971586|W|P|A Veritable Potpourri|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We have a start: Democratic Gain...http://www.democratgain.orgI think is the link.
In 1884, New York Democratic Governor Grover "Grover the Good" Cleveland was running against Maine Republican Senator James "Blaine from Maine" Blaine. The race was supposed to be tight in New York state, where the Tammany Hall machine was less than enthusiastic about supporting the reform Governor.
The Religious Bureau of the Republican National Committee had a get together where a preacher named Dr. Samuel D. Burchard spoke and said:
Burchard was summarizing three "bugaboos" that got the Republican "base vote" riled about the Democrats:We are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.
- Rum: Prohibition was the great moral issue of the day, and it divided both major parties. However, then as now, it was easy to tag the Democrats as wrong on a "values" issue. Cleveland had been pounded throughout the campaign for fathering a child out of wedlock, so any charge of moral terpitude tended to stick.
- Romanism: There were growing throngs of immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Eastern Europe. Since many of these immigrants shared a Catholic background, then considered a dangerous foreign ideology, it became easy to tag them as not quite American. Many of these voters formed the base of the Democratic urban machines.
- Rebellion: The Republicans were still waving the bloody shirt twenty years after the civil war. Understandable, really.
Cleveland narrowly carried New York and won the presidency. Some people say that Buchard's comments alienated many and helped motivate more Catholics to go to the polls, I doubt it. Cleveland's victory in New York probably had more to do with former Kansas Governor John P. St. John (I love that name), who was running as a Prohibition candidate. St. John was irked at Blaine for various reasons and put a great deal of effort in New York to cut into Blaine's support. What Burchard's comments did was indicate that the Republicans were slowly becoming out of touch with the electorate, bashing a growing immigrant population and waving the bloody shirt wasn't going to win elections anymore.
Some of Nixon's people tried to create an updated version: Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. I suggest this to Jeff as the name of his blog...
I'll leave it up to y'all to find any parallels to the modern day. I have to get back to setting our nation's youth straight.
|W|P|111894143982432969|W|P|Our Three R's|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well we should start remembering that Republicans have been doing the same damn thing for over a hundred years...And if you know thy enemy.... |W|P|Thanks for the lesson, T-ski!Long live the Roman Rum Rebellion!
Michael Bryan, Grand Pooh-bah of the excellent Blog for Arizona, has added me to his blogroll. I've known Mike since 1992, when he made a run for State House on the West side (I bet he thinks no one remembers...). He later told me he wished he ran a better race so he could tell Fife where to stick it. His tag line for me on his blogroll says that I blog "like a mad dog on anti-freeze." I don't quite know what that means. He also refers to me as "leftist, yet rational." Geez...I don't think I've ever been refered to as a leftist...I suppose that says a lot about where political dialogue has gone in this country.
They are doing a series of stories on Morning Edition about governors who are in states with legislatures controlled by the other party. This morning's story was on Don Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island. Carcieri is part of a movement by many Republican Governors, Arnold Schwartzenegger most prominently, to slash benefits and pay of public employees.
The argument of Carcieri and the others is interesting: you all are struggling with your low pay, while some pampered state employee gets their health paid for and a great pension. It is very easy to see how this argument could fly among working folks struggling to pay the rent.
The question I have is this, why do private sector employees get such low pay and benefits compared to public employees? Well, it could have something to do with the lack of unionization in the private sector these days. Around 9% of private sector employees are unionized, whereas 37% of public sector employees are unionized. I don't have the stats on it, but I am willing to bet that a unionized private sector employee gets similar pay and benefits to the public sector employee. (NB-There is an excellent article in The American Prospect about Schwartzenegger's battles with the unions)
So, why is union membership so low? Probably because these same Republicans have been doing all they can to strip the union movement of the right to organize, and their allies in the business community have been doing what they can to convince employees that somehow wages will be lower if they unionize. So, they do what they can to make sure that no union is in place to fight for pay and benefits, then they point to the one place where people can organize and complain about the money they are making.
Makes you wonder if it was all planned...|W|P|111876783921827081|W|P|The Reviews Are In...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Great site. Since you brought up percentages, can you find a legitimate news source/ census data/ demographic statistics that backs up the assertion on last night's The Daily Show that 84% of Republicans are in fact White Christians? I'm sure it is true, but I couldn't track down a site that had the data. |W|P|Tedski!I am obviously missing an important reference, because I have no idea why there would be even one Rum, Romanism and Rebellion blog, let alone two.
Kindly explain.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|People like sugar.Oh and there is an active plan by the various employers to prevent employees from benefiting from the perks the employers get from their associations.
Tedski|W|P|Dear anonymous-The 84% stat is probably based on exit polling. I found that CNN still had their exit polling data from the 2004 election. The trouble with this is that it is in reverse, they are telling you that 78% of Evangelicals voted for Bush, rather than what percentage of Bush voters are Evangelicals. But, I think they give some other percentages there so some multiplication can give you some truer percentages.
What also is probably necessary is some "cross-tabs" I haven't found any of that on the internet. You may want to go ahead and write to the Daily Show and see what poll they got that stat from and go from there.
Here is the CNN Data:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
|W|P|Boy, I'm curious, did anyone ever contact Daily Show?
I read in this morning's Republic that Debra "Xena" Brimhall has been acquitted of charges stemming from an incident that occurred at last year's Country Thunder Festival. One of the few privileges that state legislators enjoy here is a sort of immunity from some traffic violations when a legislator is on the way to the capitol. Debra, or some facsimile (she claimed it wasn't her), tried to get out of the ticket by claiming that she was a legislator an couldn't get a ticket. This brought up three problems:
- Florence (the location of the festival) was not on Debra's way to the capitol.
- The legislature was not in session
- Debra hadn't been a member of the legislature for two years.
In the end, she claimed that she wasn't at the festival, because she's a "rocker." I would poke fun at this, but she was seen at a recent Stan Ridgway show in Phoenix. This makes her not only a rocker, but a very discerning one.
Brimhall was a rather unique legislator. She once was told to put her shoes on during a session, but refused to because she loved the feel of the new carpet on her bare feet. There was talk about changing the legislature's rather lax dress code because of the sometimes bizarre way she would dress. Once, I was up there to watch a session. She took to the microphone durring a vote and rambled. Finally she looked up to the tote board and said, "I'm going to keep talking until more of you vote yes." It didn't work. I was sitting next to a lobbyist who told me that she often does this. As we know, being an oddball has never been a barrier to serving in the Arizona legislature. Brimhall is planning on running for the State House again, this time from Mesa.
Some say that Brimhall's first election was due to people being angry that Polly Rosenbaum was no longer really living in the district. Rosenbaum was a long time (really long time...she had served since the 1940's) legislator from Globe, but there was grousing from her opponents that she was really living in Phoenix. Her defeat probably had more to do with opposition to Clinton's environmental policies, it was 1994.
This brings me to my other topic (I bet you were wondering about that title). Sens. Karen Johnson and Linda Gray are planning to leave the Phoenix area and run in Greater Arizona. Johnson is planning to run against Bill Kopinicki (R-Safford) because Kopinicki is not sufficiently right-wing for her tastes (we know how liberal Safford is, right?). Gray is planning to move to Prescott, supposedly because she is retiring, but she is going to run for the legislature from up there.
Johnson has been in the house before, and her bouncing back and forth probably violates the spirit of the term-limit law. Heck, I think the term-limits should be trashed anyway, so I can't complain too much. I'm not sure that they can actually move out of town without resigning their seats. I mean, how can they file to run from another town, while they are representing someplace else? Hopefully someone will bring this up.
There is a certain arrogance here. That somehow, you can just pick up and move and that the voters there should appreciate it. What the heck does Karen Johnson know about the voters in Eastern Arizona? I think she assumes that since they are conservatives, that they will love her. What she doesn't appreciate is that Kopinicki votes the way he does for a reason. Yeah, his constituents are conservative, but there are needs that people in rural Arizona have, and Johnson is opposed to helping them out with them.
Rural Republicans that have marched in lockstep with the East Valley crowd have had very short legislative careers (Barbara Blewster, Gail Griffin). The reason for this is simple: the rural areas of the state are actually quite dependent on state programs. The largest employer in many of these towns is a state prison, a state transportation yard or some other sort of state facility. They are often dependent on the state for health care or agricultural services. One of the issues that Marsha Arzberger was able to use against Griffin was her vote to close the health clinics in her district. Griffin voted this way because the East Valley leadership didn't see any need for those clinics; Mesa didn't need them.
Unless someone changes the number of districts in this state, we could soon have a situation where no rural community will truly be represented by an actual rural resident. I guess Johnson and Gray want to see that sooner rather than later.|W|P|111863403579546408|W|P|Pack Your Carpetbags!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Michael Bryan|W|P|Ted, great blog! Tedski|W|P|Does this mean I'm on your blogroll now?
That said, there were some little incidents this week that are worth talking about. On Thursday, Sen. Harry Reid and Gov. Howard Dean held a photo-op and press conference in Reid's office. Wonkette (my sweet Ana Marie!) has an excellent account of the incident, and you can find the video of it on Dem Bloggers. Huffington Post has a rather short description of the event, but I'm linking to it because sometimes she links back...
Anyhow, our Highly Proffessional Washington Press Corps couldn't think of anything to ask except about whether or not Dean has said things that are a bit out of bounds. Yeah, good job fellas, news flash: Howard Dean is a Hothead! Stop the presses!
At some point, Brian Wilson (the other, much cooler, and now it seems more sane Brian Wilson is pictured) of Fox News asked Dean if he hated white Christians. Dean blew off the question. Then, he asked again. One reporter, seeing he had no credential, said "who are you?" Wilson, in his most professional manner, said "who the fuck are you?" Apparently this continued into the hallway afterward.
If I were Dean, I would have said "No, I don't hate White Christians, just you...", but I'm not as measured and calm as Dr. Dean.
Wilson is not some fringy blogger or talk show host, he's supposedly a journalist. I'm assuming that his mom and dad paid good money to send him to journalism school, he should do better than this. Any employee of any professional organization that acts this way in public while on duty would get his ass fired. I guess Fox News is not a professional organization. Of course, his colleagues aren't that much better. With all that is going on, you folks couldn't find anything substantive to ask about?
Senator Durbin later wondered aloud why the rest of the reporters would let this uncredentialed "moose" run the event. Wilson said that he isn't a moose, but a gazelle. Nice to have no shame, eh Brian?
Some jackass named Fred Jackson with American Family Radio is alleging that Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa was elected by illegal aliens. I wondered how long it would take for this to be out there. Out here, racist morons have claimed that Raúl Grijalva, Ed Pastor and even Mo Udall were elected by "illegals." My brother has even heard the cannard that Gov. Napolitano was elected by throngs of the undocumented. What's worse is he hears this from Republican legislators. One Republican candidate in Cochise county claimed after the 2000 election that Marsha Arzberger won with the votes of illegal aliens living in Douglas. Of course, if you suspect every latino you meet of just having jumped over the fence, it would be natural to assume that any candidate with latino support was elected by illegals. And, this would make you, in border parlance, a baboso.
MSNBC, not learning from what happened with Michael Savage, has brought a man named Jay Severin on board to be a panelist on Tucker Carlson's new show. Severin has called for the execution of Michael Dukakis, refered to Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and justified date rape. And these boneheads in the press get mad at what Howard Dean says?|W|P|111850972034241948|W|P|Not So Good Vibrations|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|About Dean and the other people getting away with that stuff:When it comes to the parties there are two standards: One is that the Republicans will be crooks no matter what so if they actually do not act like criminals then we can just ignore it or even when they DO act like criminals they are not killing anyone...ah hell we just do not care about it! The other is the Democrats should be innocent little angels who never do anything more then act kittens. Blind kittens. So when we have one who does fight back the press is shocked. Like you would be if a kitten suddenly turned into a lion that was pissed off and not going to take it anymore.
Something like that.
Giffords, who I've known for more than two decades, started the discussion. In the past, I've been frustrated by her tendency to slip into lege-speak. Gabby, I love you, but it's irritating. She did not do it this time, her talk was down to earth. She gave a great overview of the session, which was more furstration than accomplishment. She refered to the Democratic Senate Caucus as the "Dirty Dozen." This begs the question: Which one is Telly Savalas? Which one is Trini López?
Next was Lopes (thank God Rep. Linda López didn't show, it would have been too confusing for the Anglos to sort the Portuguese from the Spanish). Lopes talked about the accomplishments, which were more in the negative. Lopes believed that the governor's veto of the private school tax credit was because the house members had managed to put pressure on her. He also described the moments where Democrats were able to turn back some of the more gawdawful legilation. He also talked about how hard it is to keep the caucus together, particularly when members confuse their own personal agendas with the good of the caucus. I feel that Lopes has done an excellent job. He has been very willing to go out into the public and explain what the Democrats are doing. He is a far cry from one former Democratic leader who told the press in his early interviews that he didn't think party identification was important.
Prezelski, Bradley and Downing were each able to point to small victories here and there. Prezelski was proud of a bill he shepherded regarding off-reservation public housing for Native Americans. He got a laugh when he said, "I know some of you will be shocked about this, but some of the Republicans are racist." Bradley gave an articlate argument about morality, and how it to him means helping the least among us. It's the sort of values argument I'd like to see more of our national Democrats making. Downing was good; he took some nice shots at the Republicans. His talk was thankfully free of some of the "I'm the only one that cares" self-promotion that rubs some the wrong way. He has promised to keep pursuing the paper ballot issue.
One interesting moment came when the moderator, Steve Emerine, introduced Karen Ulich, Democratic candidate for City Council. He said that everyone needs to support her. I hope this means that Steve and his friends will not be raising money for her Republican opponent as they have in the past.|W|P|111844920045024172|W|P|Nucleus Club Meeting|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Writing this page is always a bit harder than my other page. On that one, I can do whatever I want. On this one, I actually have to put some sort of thought into it. Well, not always much thought, but thought none the less.
I was thinking about the Gospel reading that I heard in church on Sunday. Probably the same one you heard if they use the same calendar. It was from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9. Matthew is enjoying a meal with his friends, who are various low-lifes and tax collecters. Jesus walks in, and Matthew gives up the life with these friends to follow Him. Of course, those Pharisees don't like this one bit, and tell Jesus's followers that he shouldn't be running around with these sorts of people. (Notice how they don't bother to go to Jesus with this complaint? Kind of like some employers I have.) Jesus responds by saying that he did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner.
This made me think about the problems I have with some in the evangelical community. I don't want to trash anyone's faith. As a matter of fact, a co-worker of mine is a very strong evangelical (and who takes those inconvienient "love thy neighbor" things seriously) and we probably talk about religion too much for co-workers. What I have trouble with are the people that use their faith as an excuse to parade around claiming they are more righteous than the next guy, the ones who use their religion as an excuse to dislike the people they weren't inclined to like in the first place. The challenge isn't to love and serve people who you like, and are just like you. The real challenge we are called to is to seek out those who are n't like us, and serve them. I read things like this in the Gospels and I wonder if many of the conservative christian leaders would be with Jesus, or with the Pharisees.
Anyhoo...that's today's rant.|W|P|111815806874856454|W|P|Sunday's Gospel|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|On my flights (I am scared to death of flying and spend most each flight I get on praying to God to let me land and repeating my favorite Psalm) to Detroit this past weekend I actually prayed for God to allow me to forgive the Republicans (Especially the ones like Bush) for what they do. It was the first time I seriously meant it and when I got of the plane I remembered that I still need to want to forgive them because ultimately they are all of God's creatures even if they do violate Matthew 6:5, because as Jesus once said "forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." That and because one should never ask God for anything that you will not do when out of danger.Eric Bates: You've called Bush a loser. Senator Reid: And a liar. Bates: You apologized for the loser comment. Reid: But never for the liar, have I?And to think there were people in the party that thought he didn't have any fight in him.|W|P|111781700878032514|W|P|Why I love Harry Reid|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Ma Tiny|W|P|nice. it was a mistake for fox or whoever to paint reid as dull. he can only impress us after that. and does every time, in my experience.
I have no personal problems with Carol West. She seems like a very nice woman and we always have pleasant conversations. However, she threw in with the Republicans on the council; she threw in big with them. She didn't act as a moderate, someone who both sides could go to and would provide a swing vote. She acted only as a fourth vote for whatever Rondstadt, Dunbar and Walkup wanted. A responsible moderate would be someone who would vote against the more extreme positions, keep Fred and Kathleen honest. She was just a rubber-stamp. Even on issues where it should have been easy for a Democrat to vote yes, like asking Kinder-Morgan to build in a new place so gasoline wouldn't rain down on neighborhoods, she took the "All Businessmen Can Do What They Want and Damn the Residents" Republican side.
A few years ago, there was an attempted settlement with Eller Media over the ongoing billboard lawsuits. The settlement was deeply flawed, and it prompted me to send faxes to several council members (I didn't bother with Fred). I recieved calls from a couple of members, including West. The calls from the other council members would be questions about the settlement and what I thought of this or that. First question from West was, "How did you know about this?" I told her I had some sources. Why was that the question, rather than the substance of the fax?
By the way, the deal was killed, not by West being a swing vote, but by Bob Walkup telling Ronstadt what a horrible idea it was.
The dearth of coverage of this has been interesting. It got covered in the Tucson Citizen, but didn't make it into C. J. Karamargin's weekly column or the Star. It also did not make the Tucson Weekly's political columns. Either the local media realizes that Carol hadn't been working with the Democrats for a long time, or once again, they don't give a rat's ass about local politics.
I liked Carol's husband Neil, who did a great deal of work for the local party. It looks like I'm going to get his slot on the State Committee.|W|P|111773736289788246|W|P|West Quits Party|W|P|prezelski@aol.comThis starts today. Save your gas receipts! It's a 10 cents per gallon rebate. (Mark checked this out...it's not me passing on an urban legend :) Forward to anyone who uses gas! SAVE THOSE GAS RECEIPTS FROM MEMORIAL DAY THRU LABOR DAY 2005! The legislature has just passed a bill to rebate us (in ARIZONA) for some of the tax we pay on gas at the pump. Save all receipts to get the rebate. here is the info below. In case you can't connect from the link below go to www.azleg.state.az.us and SEARCH for bill number 2781. The basic provisions are: Provisions Motor Vehicle Fuel purchased between May 30, 2005 through September 5, 2005 will be eligible for a partial rebate of motor vehicle fuel taxes. Consumers will apply to the ADOT for the rebate. Rebate set at ten cents per gallon not to exceed $200 per consumer. ADOT will pay the rebate from the state general fund. Consumers will be able to apply for the rebate from September 6, 2005 through June 6, 2006. See full bill here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summSounds good. The only trouble is, the bill never made it to hearing. It was introduced late in the session, with great fanfare. Once folks started looking at it, they realized it was totally unworkable. Anyone remember alt-fuels? I hope no motivation other than ignorance prompted the e-mail. There doesn't seem to be any way that someone could make money off of it, so "scam" is probably a strong word. I think of those e-mails claiming that people are trying to remove crosses from Arlington, changing the oath sworn at courts or taking religious references off of monuments. Its like the only purpose is to get people riled up, regardless of facts.|W|P|111768410332739506|W|P|Bad Bill Prompts e-Mail Scam|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
|W|P|damn, and I was just saving my receipts too. Bastards.Our Republican Friends in the legislature are now threatening to send the governor the exact same "school choice" bill she vetoed. Um...how exactly is that supposed to work? She's supposed to be all frightened of them? Bear in mind here, this isn't a veto override, its just them passing the damn bill over and over again until she, I guess, forgets that she's opposed to it.
I haven't seen polls yet, but unless there is a major backlash against her for this supposed "lying" that she did, I can't see them being anywhere close to victorious in this fight. I'm not sure how they can argue that she lied. If she did, it was the exact same lie that they themselves told the press and Democratic legislators.
It's never stops being funny, these big manly men in the Republican leadership, and Janet always wins the cojones contests.
I work with drop-outs, many of whom are in and out of the juvenile justice system. Its interesting when I ask why they got arrested. The reasons fall into a couple of different categories:
- Somebody snitched
- The cop was a jerk
- My PO "violated me"
Interesting thing is missing in all of those, a reason that goes along the lines of "I messed up..."
I thought of this yesterday when the news of the Supreme Court overturning Arthur Andersen's conviction hit. Various business publications have been making excuses for these guys, and complaining that the big bad government caused all of this. Um, excuse me? Arthur Andersen destroyed documents to cover up the whole Enron business, no disputing that, but the court found a problem with the jury instructions about who was culpable. No court found them "innocent" or "exhonerated" them. Hey, Wall Street Journal, I don't remember you ever looking at dropped charges and not guilty verdicts against Bill Clinton's friends as an "exhoneration." Maybe it's time for publications like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to hold their corporate friends to the same sorts of legal standards that they expect poor people and liberal minded politicians to.
Ah, too much to expect today.
|W|P|111764430660876371|W|P|Everybody Knows|W|P|prezelski@aol.com