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:
|W|P|113340951588150422|W|P|Grijalva Speech|W|P|prezelski@aol.comRep. Grijalva to Discuss Iraq War at University of ArizonaTucson, 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|Missed you there! Why do you announce events you yourself don't show up for? Now you can't review it!
Tedski|W|P|I was in class, bettering myself. |W|P|How'd that work out for you? Tedski|W|P|I now know how a radio is tuned. eckeric|W|P|...and knowing is half the battle
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.com 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. |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. 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.
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.
|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.... |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].
|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. |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. |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. Tedski|W|P|Guys (or gals, hard to tell when you are anonymous)...Richard ain't running. Cool your jets. |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....
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.com Tedski|W|P|Be careful, Madame Farbo, some anonymous person will call you a sycophant... 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!
|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 Pederson
|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. 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?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|She was not the only woman running last time either. |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.... |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.
|W|P|Is Bacal a communist or what? Why is she considered so far left that we don't want to run her again?
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.com |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.
|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 project
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.com Michael Bryan|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 :)
|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.
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.
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.com 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. Tedski|W|P|Good, because it's better than your other quote that I used. |W|P|What about her resignation in the state senate to campaign. This show very poor judgement and leaves the senate veto proof. |W|P|Well that should have locked you up a job as her campaign manager - you sycophant.... |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?
|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?
|W|P|For TUCSONMARK--Thank you!!!
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.com |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. |W|P|Also, notice Ted's spelling of GRIJALVA - Grilava Tedski|W|P|It's fixed. |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.
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.com |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.... |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.
|W|P|That picture is as scary as Dunbar's... |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.
|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.. eckeric|W|P|offical statement |W|P|Ted,You are Da Man!
|W|P|Wonder who Kolbe will endorse for his seat. I am sad to see him go.
|W|P|He's endorsing Bacal. |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.
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.com Michael Bryan|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.
|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. |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. 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?
|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? Tedski|W|P|I couldn't possibly comment. |W|P|Prezelski in '06! Ted, not Tom.... eckeric|W|P|Boom! Game on! |W|P|I hate to beat you to the punch, but Kolbe just annnounced his retirement.... Tedski|W|P|What are you talking about...I posted this two days ago. |W|P|You posted speculation, but not the fact until after you were anonymously told.... Tedski|W|P|Um...okay. |W|P|For--ANYONE OUT THEREYou'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???
Michael|W|P|There is a progressive Republican, Lisa Lovallo, running for Huffman's seat in LD26.
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.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|excuse me while I barf. 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.
|W|P|We can show W our support on Monday when he visits the Old Pueblo....-RRR-
|W|P|113250922257983722|W|P|No More Deaths Benefit Concert|W|P|prezelski@aol.comI 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.
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.com |W|P|For pity's sake! We get the point! Will you please stop posting that godawful picture? 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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Can you just not use it for your dart board? Post more photos of hot lefties! shrimplate|W|P|Can't she just move to Strawberry instead? She can still do a lot of damage from Prescott.
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.com
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.com |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. |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. |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. |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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well what would be a good term then Anonymous? |W|P|Which of us anonyms are you referring to? There are at least three of us. |W|P|He wanted comments from a Tucsonan about Tuesday's electionsWhy?
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. |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!
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.
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.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*falls over laughing* boy Hayworth really IS scared that he might lose his seat.But for Tucson-yay!
|W|P|Is that a campaign announcement Elizabeth? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|NO!Larry would kill me.
|W|P|Larry Hagman is running against J.D.? His work on Dallas was OK, but he'll always be the Major to me.... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, Larry King but not the tv guy.http://www.larryking06.com
shrimplate|W|P|While I was up late, or early, whatever, I saw this thing about Weah. |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?
|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). |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. |W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Cool |W|P|Sugar Ray! 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.
|W|P|It's spelled mourning... eckeric|W|P|what is the % reporting? Tedski|W|P|That was with 72% 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. |W|P|Uh, thanks for the fix, now how about that turnout update? |W|P|How dare you disparage Zevon by associating his song with Fred Ronstadt! Michael Bryan|W|P|So cautious Ted. Doesn't it feel great to be wrong for once? Tedski|W|P|Zevon disparaged himself by letting his songs be associated with second rate Tom Cruise movies. |W|P|Don't say that about Warren, man. He's dead!
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.com |W|P|Rumour has it that he is in an undisclosed location with Cheney and Oprah....
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.com |W|P|Did you deliberately remove the Hustings blog? Is there any other news from the front? Tedski|W|P|No, the "Hustings" entry is there...I don't know what happened. I got too busy to post.
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.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|See and people think the IRS is bad. |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.
|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. |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.
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.
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.com 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? Tedski|W|P|Thank you for the liposuction details...I am now ruined for the week. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Infected fat? The things I learn by reading this blog...
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.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This is a cheesy way of getting money to make up for her loss next week.
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.com |W|P|WOW!! JUST FREAKIN WOW!!! OUR GOVORNOR KICKS ASS!!! SHE would win the State House in Texas with a photo like that. o |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? Tedski|W|P|I've got a date45-22-38
I've got a date
45-22-38
With a girl with a gun
Woah woah oh
Woman with a weapon
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted needs to get a regular woman in his life. I nominate um...Paris Hilton. |W|P|a regular woman, how about any single, available woman....
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:
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.comNo, Ted is not an elected official, are you Ted?
|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.
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.com
|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.
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.com
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.com
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.
Art Jacobson|W|P|Make that "well-deserved"I imagine any conservatives who
look in are "well disturbed."
Tedski|W|P|Thank you for the advice, I went ahead and added myself.