1/31/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This morning, I heard on KUAZ that Governor Napolitano stormed out of a meeting with legislative leaders saying, "You don't need to walk out, because I will." Yeah, a nice story, one that would be emblematic of the squabble over the English language learners legislation. It would be, except it seems to be untrue. I spoke to a couple of different sources up in Phoenix that assured me that this story is a load of hooey. So, someone is telling stories to damage the Governor and mess up the negotiations. Who the heck would do such a thing? I wonder. The Governor offered a compromise this morning. She requested a clean bill and even offered the Republicans a deal on tuition tax credits. This is called, you know, give and take. It's what those separation of powers are all about. That's what Jack Sheldon told me back when I was seven. Interestingly, the Governor's compromise targets the tuition tax credits toward ELL programs. This is apropriate, since this whole thing is supposed to be about teaching immigrant kids English. Which should force the Republicans to answer a question: what the heck did their proposal have to do with English language learners? Of course, it only took a few hours for Weiers and Bennett to reject it out of hand. I guess they really don't want a deal after all. At what point do they realize that they have been beaten?|W|P|113877575847916330|W|P|On the Verge of a Deal? Naw.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/01/2006 12:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“been beaten?” Let’s wait and see.

You said this is “about teaching immigrant kids English.” I’ll stipulate that you are correct. But what portion of the kids’ parents are here legally ? Last I checked Prop. 200 was supported by a majority of voters. Check www.espressopundit.com SO HOW WILL IT END? for a more detailed view of the possible outcomes.2/01/2006 06:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.2/01/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|John E...why are you assuming that just because a kid is an immigrant, they must be illegal? Roger has a good point, we have to educate them regardless of status, but most of these kids are here legally. This has nothing to do with 200, and those legislators that keep bringing it up are just hoping to change the subject.

Yeah, I saw Espresso Pundit, and I am a bit disappointed with his use of the term "Mexican Standoff" on this one.2/01/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Great reply by kralmajales. A very logical response. Much better than the hatred filled profanity of slim.

I still have one question. When are we just going to federalize the schools ? With the strict mandates of NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND and a federal judge ordering the state what to do it sure does not look much like local education. Just let the Feds take over the whole thing, since they basically already have.

Kralmajales is very correct, the kids are here, let’s educate them. Let’s assume though, even just hypothetical, that 5 of the children are here as a result of illegal immigration across our southern border. Maybe not even from Mexico but from some country outside of North America. It’s a great idea to still educate those 5 kids, like everyone else. But if they were a result of the Federal Government’s inability to seal the border, and that is clearly the job of the Feds, should not the Feds pay for those 5 kids to not only learn English, but for their whole time in Arizona public schools.

Arizona has a very good counter suit. Yes, we will teach the children of Arizona English so that they can learn the other subjects and receive an education equivalent to other children. I even like that idea. But if Arizona can show that a child is in the school system as a result of the Federal Government not preventing the children’s parents from entering the U.S. illegally then have the Federal Government pay for the consequence of that failure on the Feds part. It’s only fair, the Feds want Arizona to do its job then the Feds should do their job or pay for the consequences of their not doing it. The beauty of this solution is that the schools get the money they need and the kids do not suffer.

Another option is bilingual education. No, I don’t mean what used to be called bilingual education where two different groups learn in two different languages, that is more correctly called dual-monolingual education. I am talking about true bilingual, every child, ever grade, every school learns English and Spanish or English and one other foreign language (districts or schools choice to serve their population of students with the second language that is a best fit for the kids in their school.)

Wow, that would be a novel concept ! Actually teach two languages and truly honor and celebrate the cultural heritage of this state. Would the Governor be willing to propose such a bold initiative. If she did she would really run rings around the other side. How would the GOP respond, we are against teaching our children two languages ? The governor would have them in a box.2/01/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.2/01/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|Damn. I wish Janet had walked out.

You go, girl! I say spread the story far and wide..it might inspire some back bone building amongst some weak-kneed dems. Y'all need to muster up some gumption to win this year, you hear?2/01/2006 05:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Jeniene-

With all due respect, "Weak Kneed Dems"? Have you been following this closely? The Democratic legislative caucus has been united in fighting this nonsense. In some ways, it may even be said that their strength has helped Janet in this situation.

I know that it's fun for a lot of folks on the left to bash our own office holders, but this is one case where they ought to be congratulated.2/01/2006 07:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Heh.

"God put hatred in men’s hearts for good reason: to ensure justice."

- Thomas Paine2/02/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|Ted - the point of my comment was for Janet (or whomever high ranking dem) to set a good bad ass example for ALL dems who plan to run against Rep incumbents this year. My sights and hopes are much more vast than AZ politics alone.3/05/2006 05:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger State Senator John Huppenthal|W|P|Just what aspect of Napolitano's proposal would benefit theses children?

Republicans have four elements that would move these children towards successs. 1) High standard states such as Texas have minority children who rank higher in academic success. 2) An end to a system of rewarding failure. 3) Best practices in teaching these children. 4) Allowing these children, many who attend horrible schools, help in choosing a better school for their public education.

The American Research Institute just released a five year study of Engligh Language Learners in California. Ron Unz bitterly criticized the study, but it rang of truth. The study found many a limited number of schools who had great success in teaching ELL's. Some of these schools move over 90% of these children above the standard. These schools were characterized by mission driven leadership and teamwork that carefully tracked outcomes. In other schools fewer than 10% of the children achieved the standard and the reseachers witnessed teachers openly belittling these students, essentially calling them dumb and lazy.

We need to give these children a chance. That's why I support providing a public education to these children where they can get the best education, be it a district school, charter school or private school.

John Huppenthal
State Senator1/31/2006 08:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay kids, remember the spin: deep differences among Republicans indicate they are an inclusive "big tent." Any differences among Democrats are a civil war within the party and indicate that those darned liberals are unfit to govern. -sigh- The latest hoo-hah that the local media is trying to overblow is a supposed row over immigration between Raúl Grijalva and Janet Napolitano. This all stems from an interview that Grijalva gave to Bajo el Sol, a Spanish-language publication out of Yuma. Particularly one paragraph:
Nos quitó mucho de las alas que teníamos para hablar de un proceso comprensivo para una reforma migratoria, y nunca consultó con nadie que no fuera ese grupo cercano a ella que son los hombres anglosajones que hacen la estrategia para ella.
Grijalva was expressing his frustration that Napolitano didn't seem to consult many leaders in the Hispanic community before dropping her "National Guard" bombshell in her State of the State address. Other leaders, such as Rep. Steve Gallardo and Democratic National Committeeman Joe Rios have expressed similar frustrations. As much as I admire Napolitano, Grijalva has a point here. This is an issue that Grijalva has been passionate about his entire life (his father was a bracero), and he feels a bit betrayed by an ally. I realize that Napolitano is only asking for the federal government to pay for part of the cost of immigration enforcement. There are already 140 members of the Arizona National Guard who are supporting enforcement, what Napolitano is asking for is for the feds to expand that and pay for it. Of course, we all know that Donald Rumsfeld will say no. The Feds need the Arizona National Guard to support border enforcement, enforcing that border between Syria and Iraq. That isn't the point here though. Napolitano's people put this into the State of the State address without talking to her party's Hispanic leadership. Anyone could have told you that the first thing that any reporter would do is run to Gallardo, Grijalva or at worst, some publicity hound like Ben Miranda, and ask for their opinion on the matter. What sort of reaction did the Governor's office expect when they weren't consulted, or even warned? I hope this wasn't done as some cynically clever way to assure white East Valley voters that somehow she isn't owned by the Hispanic community. It's bad enough that we have people like J. D. Hayworth and Jon Kyl doing that, we don't need an otherwise good Democratic friend playing that game. Which brings me to my favorite reaction. A fella named David Lara, who is a Vice-Chairman of the Yuma County Republican party, objected to Grijalva's use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" when talking about Napolitano's advisors. He says the term was racist and demands an apology. Since when is the term racist? And, if it is, since when are Republicans angry about insults being thrown at Napolitano and her crew? Good luck waiting for that apology. In the mean time, could you look around at your own party's rhetoric on this issue and say something about it? 'Specially since it is directed at folks like you. By the way, I don't think this will result in anything aproaching a long-term rift. Grijalva and Napolitano are still close. Napolitano needs Grijalva to turn out her vote, and Grijalva needs an ally in Phoenix. Now, if only the media will take a look at the rifts in the Republican party on this issue. They'll see them in the CD 8 primary soon enough.|W|P|113872377801559857|W|P|I Don't Know About David Lara, But Ethelred the Unready Should Be Ticked|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/31/2006 10:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What was wrong with that comment? Let's take a look, shall we?

Was it racist? possibly. what difference does it make what ethnicity the governor's advisors are? as your post shows, there are hispanics on either side of the aisle ... and the issue. It doesn't really matter what color skin her advisors have so long as they are intelligent, thoughtful and respectful of all sides of the issues before coming to a conclusion.

Was it sexist? possibly. By saying that she has Anglo-Saxon males making policy for her, Grijalva implies she doesn't have a mind of her own and simply adopts whatever the white boys tell her to do. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that's the case. Perhaps Grijalva should get to know our governor better.

Was the remark hypocritical? Definitely. After all, there are several members of Grijalva's advisors including his chief of staff who are white.

What's the difference there? Ah, yes. The color of HIS skin and HIS gender automatically make him an expert where poor little Janet remains igornant and lost without big strong Hispanic men to tell her what to do about illegal immigration.

Nice.1/31/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wow Anonymous # 1,

You hit the nail right on the head.

Anonymous # 21/31/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous 3rd Dr.|W|P|Grijalva speaks for me. I think while the Gov. was working so hard to outsmart AZ GOP (which isn't that hard of a task), she forgot to consult Dem. allies. Spilt milk if you ask me. We should be worrying about and trying to resolve the problem rather than wondering who's talking to who about the problem. I think by the time you finish reading this comment, the Sonoran claimed another life. ::sighs::1/31/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well, it's nice to know that racist, sexist hypocrites speak for liberals, too.

How refreshing!1/31/2006 05:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/31/2006 09:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Rep. Grijalva is right to call out the Gov. on this. Her plan to further militarize the border is a mistake.1/31/2006 11:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|there are far too many leaders who don't know a thing about the border that she invited to a meeting to talk about her national guard idea. unfortunately, none of them have ever been to the border, ie gallardo.

kyrsten sinema has seen more along the border than any of the state leg's, including those who represent the border and refuse to talk about it.

when the minutemen were in full force in douglas we only saw sinema and lopes down there. no gallardos, no meza's, no alvarez's, etc.

who knows who the gov considers hispanic allies. if grijalva and gutierrez aren't in there, its nothing.2/01/2006 07:00:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually Rep. Gallardo was on the border during the Minuteman mobilization. I know because I was with him.

Rep. Alvarez has worked in Cochise County for much of his life. He lives in Elfrida, which, while not excactly on the Line, is in full sight of it. I have found him knowlegdeable about border issues, and he always votes the right way concerning these things in committee and on the floor.

As for me, I worked for the Tohono O'odham Nation for five years. In that time, I experienced the results of our silly, ineffective and hypocritical border policy first hand. I even got to experience harassement by an especially stupid border patrol agent with chewing tobacco stuck between his teeth.

I was also one of the Mexican-American legislators who criticized Napolitano for the National Guard idea. This was not at a meeting of "hispanic lawmakers," but at a special House Democratic Caucus, in other words, an open, public meeting. I expressed my concerns about using the military on the border, and included a reference to the U.S. Citizen who was killed in Texas while guarding his sheep because someone thought it was a good idea to use the Marines for border enforcement. The Governor was clear that the Guard would play primarily a support role, in other words, an expansion of what they were already doing. This is a far cry from the shoot-on-sight policy that others seem to want, though, admittedly, it still presents some problems. I trust that the Governor is more thoughtful about these things than most of the demagogues on the other side of the issue.

I consider Rep. Sinema to be one of my best friends in the House, and I am certain that she would tell you that she is not the only member who understands or cares about what is happening on the border.2/01/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Just because it's fun to correct Tom:

Ezequiel Hernandez was killed herding goats.2/01/2006 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Anon #1 and #2:
Hmm, Raul is neither racist or sexist and he does know the governor pretty well.

He wasnt lying when he pointed out that anglo-saxon men make the policy for her. Uh, her chief of staff and her chief of finance are well, anglo-saxon men.

And how do you know that Raul has a white COS? Have you been around them or is it just something you heard while typing from your desk in Phoenix?2/02/2006 01:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|ana ma's white? whoa.2/02/2006 04:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Mrs. Dash|W|P|Anonymous #1 is right: Janet Napolitano IS "igor-nant" (or is that just you, anonymous?)2/02/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Non only is Ana Ma not white, but she isn't Raúl's chief of staff.2/03/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Raul Grijalva's chief of staff is Glenn Miller. Hispanic? Doubtful.

Janet Napolitano's chief of staff is Dennis Burke. Burke is Irish. So Grijalva wasn't just racist, he was wrong and also managed to insult Burke too. After all, there are few things more offensive to an Irishman than to call him Anglo-Saxon seeing as how they have oppressed the Irish for hundreds of years. In any event, I don't think Burke or anyone else is "making strategy for her." She can do just fine (and has done pretty damn good) on her own.

Perhaps that's the problem. This uppity little white woman doesn't need Grijalva. Poor Raul.2/03/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|really? i had no idea that janet didn't need anyone to turn out southern arizona hispanics for her.

this is about remembering who got you there. do the people around her think that east valley whites got her elected?2/03/2006 10:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Peep|W|P|Overheard from Napolitano's crew: They think her speech gained so many Republican votes, they don't need as many Democrats. Let the pandering begin!2/04/2006 01:50:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Unfortunately, Arizona and Napolitano have been put in a very bad situation and there is little hope of the feds doing what needs to be done. I don't know how much that would change even if the DEMs were in control because this issue cuts across party lines. Pandering is coming from all sides of this issue.1/31/2006 06:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|113871368085026809|W|P|Coretta Scott King|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/31/2006 05:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, I have to admit that I ruthlessly stole this from Wactivist. Mr. T in AZ, proprietor of that site, was a bit taken aback by how much attention was given by television networks to the story of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt and their injuries in Iraq. Why, he asks, is so much attention getting paid to the injuries of these two, when there are tens of thousands of troops running the same risks every day? Why indeed. It seems like they care more about this guy Woodruff because he's on television just like they are. Heck, other reporters are running risks too. Take Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor; she's a hostage. I shudder to think about what sort of ordeals she's going through right now. She's only a print journalist, though. So, I haven't seen nearly the amount of attention paid to her. I suppose that if she were a blonde newlywed, Rita Cosby would do a full hour on her. This calls to mind a problem I have with the television news media. They seem to enjoy talking about each other and to each other. How many times have you watched a program on CNN, MSNBC or Fox (we have a lot of Fox viewers who read this...) and have seen them do interviews that amount to nothing more than teases of their other programs? Even when they interview print journalists, they tend to be the ones that have managed to get contracts to appear on their other programs. When I attended the last Democratic convention, our delegation was near CNN's booth. CNN bragged that they were on the floor of the convention, but they may as well have stayed in Washington. I watched as they mostly interviewed CNN personalities. Occasionally, they would interview a politician. Nine times out of ten, it was a member of congress that they could interview back in DC any time they wanted. Imagine, a room with thousands of people from around the country, but to find out the "pulse of the nation," they talked to their friends. Well, one thing I can say about ABC News: apparently, Woodruff and Vogt managed to survive the attack because they had adequate body armor. Unlike our troops, Woodruff and Vogt had an employer that cared enough to spend some money to keep them a little bit safer.|W|P|113871320503797412|W|P|My God, They Attacked a Journalist Anchorman!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/30/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well...David Burnell Smith's legislative career has ended with not a bang, but a whimper. Yes, I am allowed clichés. This is my blog, after all. It turns out that Smith did not get a chance to resign, since the Seceretary of State had already declared a vacancy. The attendance board bore the legend "Vacant" in place of Smith's name this morning. He was allowed to say goodbye to his colleagues. Geez, that was too easy. I was hoping for, well, you know, trouble, the kind that gives material to smart alecs like me. Trouble like, you know, security guards wrestling him to the ground, points of order shouted by Democratic legislators, Republican thugs threatening people, maybe a guy getting killed with a trident. You know, fun. I've been to too many YDA conventions, I guess. Visions of, I dunno, some guy fighting with a man in a chicken suit were dancing in my head. Of course, some Republicans are still going on about the injustice of it all. I'd like to make three points to them:
  • Smith signed a contract to participate in the Clean Elections system. That means he agreed to the rules, including the penalties.
  • Smith understood the contract because he is, after all, a lawyer.
  • Smith had a poor attendance record. You shouldn't fight so hard for a guy that wasn't interested in doing the job.
I expect a gleeful reply from Slim on this. Maybe this will get him out of whatever funk he's been in that has caused all of those angry shots he's taken at the Republican posters. He's a nice guy, really.|W|P|113866368901700029|W|P|Deposed Legislators Don't Tango|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/30/2006 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It's about time.

David Burnell Smith obviously ran for express purpose of trying to tear down the clean elections law. And he failed.1/31/2006 06:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim checks in|W|P|Huh? What? Who, me? We're still talking about this loser? Yawn...just let the guy get back to his film career already.

Hey, that reminds me. Do you know anyone who ever ate at Slymington's restaurant? I'd still like to try it out sometime. I hear he's a pretty good cook.1/30/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, you might be wondering why the Republicans keep pushing for these corporate tuition tax credits when they aren't supported by the public and, in what seems to be more important strategically, will never make it past the Governor's desk with anything that resembles a signature. Well, it could be because at least one person could make some money off of it. Rep. Steve Yarborough directs a group called the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization. The group collects comtributions, ones covered by current tax credits, and disburses them to different schools. Since his salary comes out of donations meant for tuitions, it can be said he is being paid by entirely by these tax credits. If he was just drawing a salary from the organization, it would be one thing. I mean, he does need a day job, and most would introduce a conflict of one sort or another. However, because of the way 501c organizations work, the ACSTO can only pay a small percentage of their revenues in administrative costs. His salary of $106,000 (roughly one third of administrative expenses) could be increased if the organization was able to raise more money due to the corporate tax credit. I'll be fair for a minute. Let me just say that at the very least, this is something that the House Ethics Committee should look into this and make a determination if Yarborough's enthusiasm for corporate tuition tax credits is an actionable conflict of interest, or just a rather helpful coincidence. Say, who is the Chairman of the Ethics Committee? Oh yeah, Steve Yarborough is. These guys have no shame whatsoever.|W|P|113864838315110887|W|P|Yarborough's People|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/30/2006 06:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Do you happen to know if the Arizona Republic is bringing this possible conflict of interest to light in their newspaper?

This looks VERY corrupt to me. Elected/government officials should avoid even the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest, given what little trust the public has in them. This pisses me off!!!1/30/2006 09:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|He went into politics just a bit too late. If he'd gone in a few years earlier and run for Congress, he could have been one of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff's all-stars.1/31/2006 05:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Doesn't Eddie Farnworth also operate some private schools?1/31/2006 06:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yes, yes he does, but he voted against the bills because he doesn't want to get bossed around by those federal judges.

Except when he wants them to overturn a liberal initiative, of course.2/15/2006 07:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Sam Coppersmith|W|P|It's Yarbrough. I have political dyslexia, too.1/29/2006 08:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|After the Governor vetoed the second Republican corporate tax giveaway massive wealth transfer disguised as an English language learners bill, members got right back to work to give her a bill that she could actually sign. Wait, that didn't happen. The legislature went back into regular session, and even took the weekend off. Near as anyone can figure, if the bill is being worked on at all, it is only among the leadership and maybe a few select members. They would do well to listen to some of their own members on this one, here is Representative Russ Jones, as quoted in the Yuma Sun after Napolitano's first veto:
I hope and pray we’ll be sending back just the Flores bill without anything attached to it. If they do want to run a voucher bill, they should run it as a separate bill.
Some legislators have been asking that the leadership bring in some Democrats to hammer out a bill that the Governor can sign. It sounds like if they just get a couple of responsible people from their own side, it might be good enough for the Governor. Jones's comments brought up another interesting point:
If it passes without my vote, I become superfluous to the discussion. I want to be part of the discussion. I’m decidedly not in favor of the vouchers, but unfortunately sometimes you end up having to make compromises that are distasteful but necessary.
So, you thought the bill was bad, but you voted for it anyway because you wanted "discussion"? As Dr. Phil might say, how is that working out for you? Does it look like the leadership is the least bit interested in discussing this with anyone? Carry this to its logical conclusion, and every member of the legislature should vote for any bill that might pass. It would foster more discussion and comprimise, right? If Jones had been able to find only four other colleagues who agreed with him on this (or heck, only one more Senator), this thing would have failed to pass the legislature. As long as leadership knows they can get it past the House and Senate, they won't find any reason to negotiate with anyone. Of course, all of the potential votes against this went ahead and voted for it anyhow with the same excuse, "it was going to pass anyway." Count up the number of people who say this, and you will probably find that it wouldn't have passed if they had all voted against it. So, either the excuse is bogus, or these guys are so cowed by their leadership (which they elected) that they aren't willing to stand up for their own values or their constituents. NB - I congratulated Sen. Toni Hellon and Rep. Pete Hershberger before for voting against both bills, I should throw in Sen. Carolyn Allen's name as well. Also, it turns out that Hershberger apparently voted for HB 2004, the second bill. Pete, why must you disappoint me?|W|P|113854964673632918|W|P|What Are They Working On?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/29/2006 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Massive wealth transfer is a great term. It could well be used to describe what happens when the State of Arizona heavily taxes homeowners and corporations and spends the money to fund government schools. Once funded, the state then forces parents to send their child/children to attend the nearest school, regardless of the needs, wants, or desires of the parents/students. "You live here, you go to public school #7. End of conversation."

Public funding of education should be focused on the best learning environment for each student, not on supporting a huge government bureaucracy. Parents are more qualified to decide where that "best environment" is than the state. Year after year the state has been sending kids to under performing schools. That is a record that speaks for itself and which many people rightly want to change.1/30/2006 09:44:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail|W|P|johne said: "Year after year the state has been sending kids to under performing schools."

And why are these schools "underperforming?" Because of the GOP approach of starving any program that doesn't make the rich even richer.

If this country wanted the best schools in the world then that is what it would get. But what the GOP wants is division and a good education for only a select few. Such a system, of course collapses in time, as the rich, but increasingly degenerate, rise to the top.

Look around, starting with the White House resident.1/30/2006 10:23:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Johne is perhaps unaware of several factors in school choice options in Arizona.

Once funded, the state then forces parents to send their child/children to attend the nearest school, regardless of the needs, wants, or desires of the parents/students. "You live here, you go to public school #7. End of conversation."

Arizona does have local schools run by local school districts, but children are not forced to go to the school that is the closest to them. Parents have several options. For instance, Arizona is an Open Enrollment state. From the Catalina Foothills website:

Arizona has an Open School Enrollment law that gives nonresident families--Arizona residents who do not live in the school district they want their children to attend--the option of enrolling their students in any public elementary (grades K-8) or high school (grades 9-12) in the state. It is a parental choice statute that has been in effect since September 1994.

In District 16, Open Enrollment students make up almost 7.5% of our total K-12 student population. Parents are aware that we are admitting more Open Enrollment students, and the number of applications has increased commensurately over the last several years. For a few years we did not admit nonresident students to our middle and high schools, and we had just a few openings for elementary school age children. Our capacity has increased over the last four years, and we now have nonresident children attending schools at all grade levels. This year there are 366 Open Enrollment students: 197 in grades K-5, 77 in grades 6-8, and 92 at the high school.

Beyond that, there are many districts that have Magnet Schools that provide additional specialized options for parents to pick from.

Perhaps you have heard of charter schools? There are quite a few charter schools in Arizona. They are public schools but they have no local attendance area.

A number of parents chose these schools (although a fair percentage send their children back to traditional schools and an even greater percentage will have children in both charter and traditional schools at the same time).

Year after year the state has been sending kids to under performing schools.

Ah, but you said that the parents are the best people to decide what school is working for them. Did you know that Title I schools that are found to be in need of school improvement under NCLB are required to allow students to attend a school that is not under school improvement? Some parents take this option, others choose to stay with their neighborhood school.

Public Schools in Arizona are evaluated by both the State and Federal accountability systems. This is how we know if a school is under performing or not. What methodology is used by private schools to help parents know if the private school is performing well for all of its students? NCLB requires that schools are effective with all students, and looks to see that white, black, Hispanic, Asian, native American, poor, English language learners and special education students are making adequate progress each year. If a school lets down any one of these groups, parents and the community are told. Will private schools agree to be held to the same standard?1/30/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Wow Gail, I had no idea that the GOP was that powerful. Are you saying that for the last 30 years the GOP has been in control of the education colleges, the teachers unions, and the education bureaucracy ? Are you also saying that it is just a matter of money to fix the public schools ? How much more money exactly because the system is receiving are very large amount of funding already. Have you seen the lighted football stadiums at most public high schools ? That is where the money went.

If the GOP is so fixated on keeping divisions in society why do they support vouchers ? A system where the poor and middle class would have a chance to attend non-public schools, just like many rich kids do ?1/30/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous, to answer your last question. Private schools are held to a higher standard because they are purely voluntary. They do not confiscate private wealth through taxation and then keep the money just for their particular site. Their measure of performance is the satisfaction of the parents and performance of the student. I think the parents are in much better position to decide what is best for their children then the state or some abstract so called accountability system.

Open enrolment is great but does it come with transportation ? If not then it only helps the rich who can affords to transport their kids to a school further away.

Charter schools are great too. But if charter schools are working OK then why not have vouchers so that parents could choose to send their child to a local religious school or a private, non-charter school. And don’t tell me that there is no oversight of religious or private schools. The worst public school in Arizona has state oversight. Oversight does not fix a school, it just confirms that it is performing poorly. The real oversight is the parent. The vast majority of parent will pull their kids out of a non-public school if it is not performing.1/30/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail|W|P|johne said: "If the GOP is so fixated on keeping divisions in society why do they support vouchers ? A system where the poor and middle class would have a chance to attend non-public schools, just like many rich kids do ?"

Ah yes, vouchers will create a marvelously equal world of education for rich, middle, and poor. Do you really believe that? And do you really believe that the GOP is 'fixated' on vouchers because this is what they really expect the result to be?

If so, I have some shares in a bridge you might want to buy ...1/30/2006 02:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|With the judge's decision last week to rack up $500,000 per day in fines and deposit them into an account that will go to fund English learners, why does the Governor have to do anything. The way I read it is, that if the legislature continues to play games with this issue, she can do nothing at all and it will get funded anyway.2/04/2006 01:58:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I think the schools need to be better funded; however, I also think the biggest determinant of how well a kid does in school is the amount of importance the kid's parent places on education. Has the parent been encouraging the kid to read and making sure the kid does his/her homework? And how much interest does the parent show in the kid's school?1/28/2006 07:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Funny how many people read this blog. I recieved a note from Barrett Marson, who works as the Director of Communications for the Arizona House of Representatives:
Tedski, I read your blog every day and do so love it. You may remember me from being the legislative reporter from the Daily Star for a couple years and also remember that I left to join the ranks of the PR. Anyway, you have said several times that the corporate tuition tax credit is a "massive tax give away," and that is not the truth. The tax credit is applied against what a company owes the state. So, if ABC Printing owes $500,000 in income taxes to Arizona, it can decide to give $500,000 to a tuition organization and nothing to the state. Or it can give $250,000 to a tuition organization and $250,000 to the state. However, it is not saving one red cent. Its stockholders, owners or employees get no financial benefit from sending the money to an STO versus the state. The company owes the exact same money. It's just a question of where that money goes. Also, the state would save money because the company's dollars would pay for a child's education. The money would follow the student. Children not in public schools would obviously not receive the $5,000 or so that the state spends per pupil. Now, if yer just havin' fun and spinning it the other way, by all means, go ahead and keep spinning away. I love honest debates. So be honest. You can still be intellectually honest and have fun at someone else's expense. Its just better when its true. I still enjoy reading your stuff. I just like it when you are right. Thanks and have a good weekend. Barrett Marson Director of Communications Arizona House of Representatives
Ouch! Got me there. To be fair to Mr. Marson, he's got a really difficult job selling this thing. He was given a pig and some lipstick, and his employers expect him to enter it in beauty contests. As to the my characterization of the credit as a "give away," he is correct that this would be money that the buisinesses would be spending the money anyway. Point taken, it's not like this money can go to paying for a trip to Vegas. Although, since the money is not going into the general fund, and the money is going to something the corporation wants to do, in a way it can be called a give away. For example, if XYZ Inc is donating $200,000 to a STO regardless of the credit but then claim it, is it a give away since the money would have been spent anyway? If the Republicans can call not cutting taxes a " tax increase"... However, I'll go ahead and stipulate to Marson's argument. Can I call it a "massive wealth transfer" instead? I've got a couple of reasons for this one. For one, my understanding is that the credit applies to a donation to any school's scholarship program. This will be a boon for already well-endowed schools in Phoenix and Tucson that have a high profile and the mechanism for asking for large donations. The Brophys and St Gregorys can raise a lot of money with this, whereas less well known and newer schools would not benefit. The lion's share of this money would go to schools that are already well heeled. Schools in smaller and poorer communities without a large corporate presence could recieve no benefit at all. Notice that this money will go to schools that don't serve the community, English language learners, that this bill is supposed to serve. Full disclosure: I attended St. Gregory High School, a private Episcopal school here in Tucson, on a scholarship even. I don't remember a single English language learner being served by our school, although we had some students who said "like", "harsh" and "bogus" too much. There is nothing in this bill to encourage these schools to start English language learner programs in return for taking the donations to their STOs. Even with the lower $50,000,000 cap on the credit, this still blows a pretty large hole in the budget. The argument was made (even more strenuously under the first, "uncapped" bill) that we shouldn't assume that everyone who can will take the credit. As we saw with Alt-Fuels (not that long ago, really), to plan correctly we should assume that everyone who can will take the credit. This is where the figure of $850,000,000 came from in the original bill. So, that is $50,000,000 that is not budgeted for. So, where does that money come from? In the past, the legislature has had two solutions to budget shortfalls: cutting programs entirely or mandating that local governments take over responsibility. So, this $50,000,000 could be made up for in longer lines at when you want to get a driver's license, overcrowded lower division classes at ASU or maybe even higher local taxes. It isn't a cut, but to make up for a reduction in money recieved from corporate taxes, working families will be asked to make up the shortfall. Ironically, the money could come from cuts in ELL and ESL programs... Still unaddressed are the other problems with this bill. Even without the credit, the bill sets up a poorly concieved system to meet the needs of English language learners. It seems that this is just an excuse for the Republicans to set up a tax credit that they have not been able to sneak by the Governor before.|W|P|113846243537588486|W|P|A Missive From One of the Legion of R-Cubed Fans|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/28/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim takes the gloves off|W|P|You're too nice about this Ted.

The plan is basically corrupt. It is indeed a "massive tax giveaway" to private interests. How many more times do we need watch crony capitalists selling their supply-side crap to the public before we can call it what it is? How many more times do we get to watch money come out of our pockets and out of our communities only to flow to wealthy private interests such as "tuition organizations" and end up in the campaign coffers of corrupt Republican supply-side crooks?

Mr Marson, sell your snake oil somewhere else. The wealthy don't need welfare, our public schools do. Stop shilling for the fat cats and their selfish, greedy, destructive agenda.

Resign, get a real job, get a life, give a shit, or GO AWAY.1/28/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|I've got to go with Slim on this one. It takes money out of state coffers, dollars that could go to our public schools, and channels it to Brophy or some other madrassa. It stinks.1/29/2006 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Mr. Marson pretty much says where that $50m shortfall will be. in his letter, he states, "The money would follow the student. Children not in public schools would obviously not receive the $5,000 or so that the state spends per pupil."

That 50 million dolllars going to private schools will be made up in cuts to public schools "since those children are not in public schools."

So we'd better hope at least 10,000 ELL students take advantage of that credit.1/29/2006 11:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|There are two scenarios. First the Public Schools of Arizona are producing a superior product. If this is the case they have nothing to worry about because not that many parents will really want to send their kids to Brophy or St. Gregorys. So many students will stay in the government (sorry public) schools that they will have plenty of money left.

The second scenario is that the government schools are providing such a mediocre to poor educational experience that once given the chance parents will send their kids almost anywhere else. The kids will flee faster than rat getting off of a sinking ship.

The first case is self correcting, enough kids stay, plenty of money left. In the second scenario, why would you want to keep funding a program that the people it is intended to serve don’t want or value the service ?1/30/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It never ceases to amaze me how little people like 'johne' understand the way the world works. Johne assumes this is a perfect world and 1) everyone who wants to go to Brophy and St Gregory's can or will get in, 2) these parents who are dying to get their kids into those schools have the time and the means to get their kids there every day, 3) those kids who get stuck in public schools either want to be there or don't care enough about education to want to move (ergo, it's their own fault if they're ignorant).

First, I would think these free market people would be the first to recognize that high performing schools like B and St.G are that way because they have a highly selective admissions program. In other words, they cherry pick the smartest and most talented students. They aren't likely to change that behavior with the addition of vouchers. Accordingly, not everyone who wants to send their kid to these schools will get them there.

Second, many, if not most, of the parents of children who are in public schools cannot afford to drive their children to those schools every day. In case you hadn't noticed, johne, private schools rely on the parents to get their kids to school. So, kids in Buckeye or Mesa would have to travel over an hour every day to get to Brophy. I'm sure similar analogies could be made for St. Gregory's. That obstacle alone is enough to prevent kids from using vouchers, even if they had them.
...and i'm not even talking about RURAL areas. Pray tell, johne, what do those kids do for an education?

Finally, as Ted said before, we need to properly fund and elevate ALL our public schools if we expect even the lowliest of children to be able to function in this society and 21st century economy once they become adults.1/30/2006 10:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous, you make some good points but none of them answer my central question. Why not leave it up to parents to make the final decision where their kids go to school. In the rural areas where there are few options most kids would stay in the public schools and if vouchers were in place the money would stay in the public school with the kids.

Say a parent in Mesa was not able to drive to Brophy but wanted something different than the local public school. They may want to send their kid to a local Christian school. What is wrong with that if the child does better at that local alternative to the public school ?

Your final statement that we need to properly fund and elevate our schools is fine. Why does it only have to be the public schools ? What is it about public schools that is so sacred that the money cannot follow the students to whatever school the parents and student choose ?

Is the point of funding education to educate children or is it to protect a huge government bureaucracy from competition ? You said that Brophy and St. Gregorys “cherry pick the smartest and most talented students.” Why are these students leaving the public system in the first place ? If public schools are so great how come the smartest and most talented even consider leaving ? What about the rest of the kids ? The ones who aren’t the smartest or most talented, must they be forced to stay in the public system ? Not everyone can get into Brophy, but some may want to attend a non-public school down the street from the public school you want to force them to attend. Are only the rich and well connected entitled to educational options ?1/30/2006 10:45:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|There are 2,300 charter schools in the U.S. and over 500 of them are in Arizona, I have a hard time believeing that the family in Mesa couldn't find one nearby. You can't throw a rock without hiting a charter school in this state. I went to both public and private schools growing up. The years that I went to private school were ok. The class size was small, and the teaching was ok but nothing special. All of the students came to school fairly prepared for school, and that meant that the teachers didn't really have to be all that stellar. We were going to learn anyway. The main reason that my parents chose those years for private school was for the religious education. They knew that if they wanted that, then they needed to pay for it themselves. I think that all this talk about private schools needs to be a little bit more honest. People who are pushing this want to pay for religious instruction using community funds.

PS - all the real Tucsonans know that Special Projects High School is where all the best and brightest went.1/30/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|oh, last post was a different anon from the above anon....1/30/2006 10:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Special Projects...It's now called University High School...and its a public school that routinely graduates Flynn Scholars, National Merit Scholars and gets its graduates to the best colleges.

It has even produced one of this year's congressional candidates...I'll try not to mention her name...:)1/30/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|If there are so many charter school options in Mesa than what is there to fear from vouchers for religious schools ? What is wrong with religious education if the parents choose that for their children. If the state and the super-state (the Federal Government) drive God out of the public schools, thus installing the region of secular humanism, should not people of faith, rich and poor, have options for their children’s education ?

Are you saying that it is fine for wealthy believers to send they kids to a religious school but poor believers are stuck going to the local god-less public school ?1/30/2006 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski is correct; University High is a great program. The true test of greatness is competition. Let vouchers follow the students and then see where the parent and kids choose to go.1/30/2006 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|johne,

Your questions suggest an argument that relies on a fundamental misunderstanding - that there is no way to improve public schools, so we should just abandon them and let the private sector do its job.

First, I do not think that anyone (certainly not myself - anonymous #1) believes that the public schools are the best they can be right now. But it does not follow, that becuase it needs improvement, it should be abandoned.

Why, you ask, should we work to improve public schools instead of letting people choose their own private school? Because the community (read: all of us are in this together, whether we like it or not) needs an educated citizenry to survive. We need a good public education system the way we need good public road system. Because we cannot do it on our own.

We do not need to fund private schools because that is a job for the "free market" to provide. The mistake people make in this argument is that their tax dollars should follow their child. The taxes we pay are not for our own selfish benefits, but for the benefit of the community.

And finally, there are many reasons why children leave the public school system, including primarily religious reasons. Why should a child who is Jewish or athiest have to turn to Catholics or Episcopalians to educate their child? And why should we have to fund it?1/30/2006 01:22:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|johne -


Gov. Janet Napolitano

If you want to show that you sincerely care about educating our kids, why not propose vouchers that don't take money away from public schools? That would be great! It would provide the school choice which you pretend to care so much about, plus, it would reduce the burden on our public schools and allow them to put money into many of the things that they currently struggle with, like buying pencils.1/31/2006 11:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Reply to all,

You are the ones who don't get it. One person wrote, "it does not follow, that because it needs improvement, it should be abandoned." It has already been abandoned by large parts of society that used to support the public schools. Go visit Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, Casas Christian School, Catalina Foothills Church, etc. One person wrote "Why should a child who is Jewish or athiest have to turn to Catholics or Episcopalians to educate their child?" Smell the coffee, it’s about Evangelicals. The schools I mentioned above have a new building put up each week that I drive by (small exaggeration but not by much.)

Hey, my kid turns 3 this month. This is not my battle, I am just an observer stating a fact. Middle to upper-middle class Christian families are making other arrangements. I went to a fund-raising dinner last year at a Christian school and they raised (voluntarily) about $100,000 in one night. They actually are doing fine without state money. But be clear, since their kids are not in the public system, they are not highly motivated to fund it. Sorry to sound crass but people are not eager to pay for a service that they do not want.

You said, "it would reduce the burden on our public schools" What is the burden ? Educating a kid ? If the kid goes to a non-public school then there is one less burden for the public system to deal with. Sure, some money will leave the public system and follow the child to a non-public school but then the public school just had its burden lessened.

Slim, how am I being dishonest ? You called me a lot of words but I am being very frank and clear about my position. Also, your “CHILDREN’S EDUCATION” has already been degraded. Don’t take my work for it, check the AIMS scores. It’s all on the web - http://www.ade.state.az.us/profile/publicview Many of the scores are quite low for Category 1 student, those who are English proficient.

You can attack me and call me names but that will not change the facts.2/01/2006 12:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous #1 you are correct that “it does not follow, that because it needs improvement, it should be abandoned.” It also does not follow that because a system can be improved that you should force poor families, because they have no other economically feasible option, to send their kids only to a public school. Even if it is abandonment, why not let the parents make the choice. If parents want to send their kids to a non-public school then it is they who have abandoned the public system not me or the GOP. Let each individual family choose what they think about the public system. If it is worth saving and fixing people will stay. If it not worth it people will leave. The great thing about vouchers is that it empowers the people. Is that not democracy in action ?

If this is really about the rich then means test the vouchers. Poor people are eligible, rich are not. Or have a sliding scale. Poor get $8,000/yr. per kid to spend at any school they want. Middle class get $4,000/yr., rich get a voucher for $100/yr. so they can fill their Volvo XC90 gas tank once or twice as they drive back and forth from the foothills to central to drop their kids at St. Michael’s.

A voucher system in not about abandoning the public schools it’s about providing choices to underprivileged children (it does little or nothing for the rich since they already have the money to send their kids where ever they want.)2/01/2006 12:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Hey slim, here is a memo for you.

Send a big fat check to Toni Hellon because if she losses to Al Melvin in the District 26 Republican primary the State Senate will be one vote closer to overriding the Governor’s vetoes.

Constantine2/01/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|john e -

You either didn't read my comment, or you're the dishonest Republican shill you appear to be.

You want vouchers? You want choice? Great! Me too! But not at the expense of public schools.

Decreasing the number of children in a school doesn't decrease the overhead of keeping the lights and the air on. How can you even talk about taking money away from public schools in the name of "choice", when teachers are paying for classroom supplies and school buildings in poor districts are crumbling from lack of maitenance.

Vouchers! Vouchers! Rah! Rah! Rah! Uncrowd the classrooms! Set the children free!

Come on John! Our dream coalition is waiting for us! The only thing standing in the way is Republican insistence on paying for it out of money for the public schools.2/01/2006 07:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Whoa! And just to underscore the hypocrisy and cynicism of Republican Conservative Compassion(TM), the US House cut $16 billion from education today. That's $16 billion less for your voucher proposal, john. Man, there's gonna be none of them children's behinds left pretty soon now.

But I'm sure it's all in the plan. We just need a little more discipline and accountability. Those AIMS test scores will have to come up sometime. We'll show those ungrateful little rats. We just need to cut the budget a little more.1/27/2006 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that Clear Channel must remove billboards from along I-10. This is one of several ongoing legal actions between Clear Channel and various local governments. It is one of many instances where Clear Channel seemed to believe that they don't need to follow the rules that other companies need to follow. Clear Channel claimed that since this was land given to them by the Arizona Department of Transportation, that they were not subject to local rules. The land was given to them by ADOT to compensate for billboards that were demolished for freeway work. This is an interesting theory. The state government has sovereign immunity, much in the way that the federal government does. For example, the University of Arizona does not need to follow zoning codes. However, this is land that was given to Clear Channel, which means that it is no longer state land. The court didn't buy the argument that the land was being given for a public purpose and enjoys protection as state land. Interesting, that. Building billboards is a public purpose? I'm not a lawyer, but if this worked, imagine the possibilities. The land where I am sitting right now was homesteaded 110, maybe 120 years ago. So it was federal land, given away for the public interest of moving people west. I no longer need to follow state law then, right? At least this time, Clear Channel actually tried to use the courts. In the past, Clear Channel and its predecessors (Eller, Whiteco) would do things like send out crews at night to modify billboards or build new billboards without permits then claim that the big, bad goverment wasn't letting them do their buisiness. This also shows that if local government sticks to their guns, they can win these cases since the law is on their side. The technique that the billboard industry has used is to keep appeals up for years and hope that local governments will stop wanting to pay the lawyers at some point. It would have been a dangerous precedent to settle on their terms. It would show that all an industry would have to do to avoid any local regulation, maybe zoning codes, maybe health codes, would be to sue and wait until the locals give up. NB - This wasn't the only incident of ADOT cutting deals with the billboard companies without respecting local regulations or needs. My second or third meeting of the sign code committee, a representative of ADOT wanted us to pass a resolution asking the City Council pay Whiteco, the company that owned the billboards at the time, for billboards demolished for state road work. Given that the city was suing Whiteco at the time over those same billboards, and that the ADOT representative had to admit that no locality had ever been asked to do this, we passed a resolution against it instead.|W|P|113840167185080019|W|P|Pity the Poor Billboard Conglomerate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/27/2006 01:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A correspondent in Yuma sent me a story about the former Yuma County School Superintendent Judeth Badgley. She's a Republican Schools chief who two years ago presided over a reign of kick-backs and political favortism. This sounds vaguely familiar...I know there is a reason that the story was sent to me...|W|P|113839424046094054|W|P|Arlo Said That If We Have Three, We Will Have Ourselves a Movement|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/27/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|No, he said that three would be an organization. He said that fifty people a day would be a movement, the Alice's restaurant anti-massacree movement.1/27/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|From the desk of David Burnell Smith, Citizen:
The Arizona Supreme Court has denied my motion for a stay and indicated that they will deny my petition for review. Therefore, I will submit my letter to the Speaker on Monday, January 31st, on the Floor. Sincerely, DAVID BURNELL SMITH Arizona State House of Representatives District 7
There is one huge problem with this (and one smaller, amusing one that I will get to later): Smith is already out of office as of midnight last night, according to the court order. I don't even think he can legally be on the floor to submit this letter, since he was never legitimately elected. I can already see him spinning this as a "voluntary resignation" for the "good of the state" or something. This reminds me of when Fife Symington resigned "for the good of the state," even though the fact that he had already been convicted of a felony meant that he was already out of office. From now on, I'm going to use this logic and tell people that I have a chaste relationship with Izabella Scorupco. The fact that other circumstances mean that I don't have a choice in the matter isn't important. I should be congratulated for my piety and restraint. And the other thing: Monday is the 30th. Maybe this isn't a mistake, but merely another delaying tactic.|W|P|113838251328540491|W|P|Not Only Does He Hold Office Illegally, But Apparently He Can't Read a Calendar|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/27/2006 01:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Let's hope the House security guards show him the door when he tries to enter the building on Monday. What a jerk!1/27/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Or, maybe he plans to stay there and scream even long after the term he wasn't elected to ends. The next time that January 31 is on a Monday is in 2011.1/27/2006 03:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Imagine, given the judge's ruling today, how Republicans will respond if the Governor uses Rep. Smith's tactics, and does nothing but waits until the fines accumulated in the fund the judge set up are enough to fund English learner programs as per Flores.1/27/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I posted a blurb about Maricopa County Schools Superintendent Sandra Dowling a few days ago. Now I'm hearing more about the story, and it should outrage every citizen of this state. Dowling, in addition to her other duties as Superintendent, is the sole member of the board of what is called the Maricopa County Regional School District. This district manages twelve schools, seven of which are alternative schools and includes three that serve the homeless. Because of the quality and profile of these programs, they have managed to raise private money. Turns out, both the Attorney General and Maricopa County Sheriff have been investigating Dowling's office for mispending and mishandling the district's funds to the tune of at least $3,000,000. There are also the allegations of bid-rigging and nepotism. Ah, the joys of one party Republican rule! The trouble became public for Dowling when she had a tiff with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. She refused to open her books so that the Board, which has fiduciary responsibility, could see if there was any debt that they could be responsible for. This all came to a head when the Board had to subpoena the District's books earlier this month. By the way, State School Superintendent Tom Horne investigated too, and said that the shortfall was "justified." One hand washes another. Dowling is claiming that this is all politically motivated and over sensationalized. Knowing Sheriff Arpaio, he probably did something over the top to get into the papers, but I can't see how losing three to four million dollars to educate homeless kids is no big deal. This story comes on the heels of the silliness at the State Legislature over the English Language Learners bill. The Republicans insist that they are justified in trying to put corporate tuition tax credits in the bill, which just gives the Governor reason to veto it. This isn't working for them, but they keep trying it anyway. They want to use this bill, which is supposed to help immigrant students learn English, as a way to fund a massive corporate tax giveaway. Either they think the public supports such a move, or they think that people are too stupid to notice. Well, people are noticing:
Survey USA poll for KPNX, 335 responses: “Do you think Gov. Napolitano has handled the ELL situation the right way?” 48% Right Way 39% Wrong Way 14% Not Sure “Do you think the Arizona legislature has handled the ELL situation the right way?” 27% Right Way 61% Wrong Way 12% Not Sure
Yep. Looks like there is a huge groundswell of support in the land for corporate tax credits. Even without the tax credits, both bills that the Governor vetoed were deeply flawed and would probably have been rejected by the judge in the case. The bill counts money that schools are recieving, from, say Youth Opporitunity or No Child Left Behind grants, against their ELL money, whether or not that money is being or can be spent on English Language Learners. It also uses that money to mask how little is actually being allocated by the bill. Further, it forces districts to go to a board of political appointees to ask for the money. All Napolitano did was veto the bill before the judge could look at it. Jim Weiers and company ought to thank her for saving them the embarassment of having the judge publicly scold them. Some other random thoughts that I have: I have heard Weiers use words like "dictator" when describing the Governor's actions. This is silly, since near as I can tell, the state constitution allows the Governor to veto bills. Of course, unlike Mr. Weiers, I have actually read the state constitution. I find it funny that a group of people that are elected from highly gerrymandered districts and that have shown little regard for the rights of the legislative minority (even attempting to silence some members last session) are now squaking about an anti-democratic power grab. It seems that the Governor and her vetoes are far more representative of the majority in this state than these ideological bills that the Republican leadership is pushing. Also, someone told me that Rep. Jonathan Paton was interviewed on Channel 12 up in Phoenix and said something like "this bill isn't that important." An $850,000,000 tax giveaway is not important? Gawd, I know you are a reasonable guy (for a Republican.) What Kool-Aid do they make you drink up there, Jonathan?|W|P|113837352186320566|W|P|Republicans: Underprivileged Kids = Big Bucks|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/27/2006 08:26:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|migod - polishmexican
maybe it'll only take 2 to change that lightbulb now
Uncle Frank
temujin41@snet.net1/27/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|first of all, let me say i'm not the anonymous who posted the first comment ... whatever the heck that was.

anyhow, the depth of Weiers ignorance on the workings of government and its citizens comes as no surprise to me ever since i saw this attorney general opinion he asked for. He apparently felt the need to ask the AG if Navajos were eligble to serve in appointed state office because he was unaware that they are citizens of this state.

I'm not kidding! See the opinion here.
http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2003/I03-007.pdf1/27/2006 10:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Ted, first, your link to the story seems to be broken. As for school administrators wasting money, why in heck do you think the right-side-of-the-aisle bitches about just throwing dollar after dollar at education? We have a deep-felt belief that public school administrators blow too much of the money on nice offices and other silliness rather than spending the money in the classrooms and educating the kids. Why else would we be for private schools, school vouchers, AIMs testing, accountability in the schools, merit based pay, be anti-Teachers' Union and the like? Apparently, Dowling may be evidence to justify our beliefs.

Additionally, if you want to bitch about one party rule, let's make ALL elections in the state partisan elections. Funny, where the Dems are weak, they bitch for non-partisan elections, like in Phoenix and Maricopa County. But where the Dems are strong, they make the elections partisan, like in Tucson. Tell you what, make ALL elections partisan, THEN when some REPUBLICAN school admin wastes money, you can blame Republicans all day long AND I'LL SUPPORT YOU!

Yep, Dowling is a Republican. However, she administers the Pappas school for the homeless. That school has gotten praise upon praise. Perhaps if the schools under her care were doing poor, I'd be more response to your bitching. Such is not the case.

Let's see Dem administrators run schools that get endless praise. We know that the inner cities are largely Dem and their school boards are overwhelmingly Dem. We also know that by-and-large, inner city schools suck. I posit that if those inner city schools were run by Rs, they'd be doing a hell of a lot better, like the Pappas school, even if there is corruption.

If she's doing corrupt things, she needs to go nevertheless. I'm just not as concerned about it because her schools do well. Look, the leftists in Canada got thrown out of power in Canada, the Congress has some scandal swirling about, Fatah got thrown out due to corruption, we're seeing it all over the world. The message isn't that right-wingers are bad, it's that GOVERNMENT is bad. Yet the lefties want more and more government. I think we should throw all the bums out and hold new elections right now, but we'll have to wait until November, won't we?

As for Horne, he's a RINO, philandering sack of crap and I helped Dean Martin oust his butt the first time. He voted all too often with the Ds when he was a Senator. I voted against him in the General Election when he ran for Superintendant. He should be barred from holding office in the state, but the unwashed proletariat believed otherwise. OF COURSE Horne is gonna protect school administrators! He's been in bed with that industry all along! He was a School Board member for Phoenix, he's pro-Teachers' Union, etc. Horne should be labeled a D and we all know it. Don't try to pin Horne's modearate shenanigans on the Rs...we hate him.1/27/2006 09:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|The problem is that some people are corrupt--not the institutions. People get away with corruption in government because most voters and the media aren't doing what's needed to force government to be honest. Same thing holds for stockholders and corporations. Same thing holds for any institution--church, union, etc.

The present federal government is the prime example of this. Our present federal debt is approximately $8 trillion or so, with some of this money owed to China. Both parties have played a major part in producing this debt--but we, the citizens, are ultimately to blame for this.

A prime example of this corruption is President Bush and Company. Bush says, "You know how to spend your money much better than the government does," and he keeps passing numerous tax cuts. But to do this, he has to BORROW money on our kids' credit card. So, in reality, he's not giving us back our own money; he's borrowing from our kids [by adding to the federal debt]to give us a tax cut. This borrowing is to the tune of $300-$400 billion a year. Last time I checked, approximately 15% of the federal budget goes towards paying just the interest on this debt.

Ultimately our kids and grandkids will have to pay this bill and they weren't consulted. If this isn't totally corrupt, what the hell is?1/30/2006 09:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|CC Burro, what's more corrupt than all the spending? How about instead of borrowing to pay for the debt, raising taxes as the Dummycrats always do? Look, the conservatives are not all that happy with Bush because of his spending. That's why when we see the RSC propose Operation Offset and the like, we're all behind it. BTW, if I were emperor of the US, I'd ensure we spent below projected receipts and I'd be sure that AT LEAST $100 Billion per year were spent on debt reduction. Even if I were to get that kind of dictate passed, it'd take 80 some-odd years to pay the debt back! That's an outrage!

And as for your individuals, not institutions comment, you better tell your red media buddies that, because instead of labeling the individual R and D members of Congress who took Abramoff money, or money from his associates, they just parrot, "Republican scandal! Republican scandal!" ceaselessly.1/30/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|they just parrot, "Republican scandal! Republican scandal!"

Dude, it is a Repubilcan scandal. All of the Abramoff money went to Republicans. As for the tribes that he was advising, donations to democrats actually went down after he started advising them. The Repubilcans own the Abramoff scandal, and it owns them.2/01/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Sadly I have to say that the charges being leveled at Sandra Dowling are true. The district is a mess, the quality of education is poor (no social studies, science, PE, art, music, library, or computer classes), there aren't enough staff members at the schools, there is drug use by the students while at the school, families put their kids in the schools just for the free services and clothes, and Dowling gives special treatment to her friends and family (her daughter is Dean of Students at the middle school even though she is not qualified for the position). The county or state needs to take over the district (most of the employees would welcome it) and let Sandra Dowling stick to what she was elected to do.1/26/2006 11:30:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It appears that the short and well litigated political career of David Burnell Smith has finally ended. The Arizona Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay of a lower court's order that he vacate his office for violating the Clean Elections law. He can still appeal, but he will not be able to do so as an office holder. This is a great victory for the Clean Elections system. It means that the statute actually has teeth. Smith was a lawmaker of few accomplishments who had a poor attendance record. He won't be missed. He'll probably be replaced with an equally faceless Republican functionary. None the less, there is a lot to celebrate with this decision. Don't worry about Smith, he's got that great acting career to fall back on. I know I am not the only one to notice that several clients of political consultant Constantine Querard have had similar trouble with the Clean Elections law. What's up with that?|W|P|113834433588348611|W|P|Make Sure Not to Slam the Door; Just Hand Your Keys to Slim on the Way Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/27/2006 12:23:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim jiggidy-jig|W|P|Ha! Goodbye, Asshole!1/27/2006 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What gets me is that Smith is a lawyer.

I wonder if anyone has made a complaint about him to the State Bar on this issue. How can a lawyer continue to practice when he has been found to have broken the law??? Can anyone answer that question for me?1/27/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well...I don't know about a bar complaint...but he can't be a good lawyer, since he is claiming that he didn't understand a rather simple contract.1/27/2006 01:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well of course Constantine's clients didn't follow the law... the law doesn't apply to them. They are doing God's work and no man-made, liberal law is going to get in their way! In fact, no group of unelected judges or commission can kick them out of office... they were elected by the people... oh wait... Clean Elections was passed by the people. Gee - now I'm all confused.1/26/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, my mom got two calls this morning at 4:30. That's right, 4:30 AM. You know, when most people don't like to be awoken by phone calls. The calls were both recordings of Howard Dean's infamous "scream" speech. She called me up wondering if there was some sort of "robo-call" going out. Thinking about it later, I couldn't imagine why anyone would send out robo-calls containing this speech. A Democratic organization wouldn't have any good reason to do it. As much as the Republicans love tweaking Democratic voters, I doubt that they would have any reason to spend serious money doing it, especially before sunrise. The only conclusion I can come to is that this was an individual calling up to harrass her. It could be because of me or my brother. Neither of us is listed in the phone book; we are Gen Xers without land lines. Although I have a pseudonym, anyone who knows anything about me knows exactly who I am. If you try to look up someone with my last name, you'll find my Mom and Dad. So, if this is one of my many Republican "fans" who think this is somehow funny. It ain't. Not because it is particularly offensive (although Mom likes her sleep), but because it is just stupid. The Dean speech stopped beeing funny 'round about the three hundreth time CNN played it (or the seventieth time we played it at the Clark office). If you need to harrass me, write me an e-mail and I'll give you a number so you can call me instead. If you're looking to harass my brother, there is an 800 number and you can leave a message with his assistant. Of course, you'll do neither one. You lack the cajones to do anything but anonymously call my mom.|W|P|113829174290540714|W|P|It Takes a Big Man|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/26/2006 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It's bad enough when losers like this try to contact bloggers and harrass them (I once had some loser track me down to argue, and you might find this post about a problem that a blogger I read had), but to harrass your mother like this (and I know your mom, she is a classy lady who has done a lot of good work besides raising the two of you) is disgusting. And it's also a crime, probably the first thing you mom should do is set her phone to not accept anonymous calls. If you catch the bastard, sue his pants off.

And you're right, Ted. It takes a big man to call up and harrass somebody's mother.1/26/2006 11:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|on a lighter note, happy birthday to you and your brother and congratulations on becoming 'old' democrats.1/26/2006 10:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|D'oh! Soo Sorry, Ted... I asked Howard to call YOU in the morning and sing you the "mañanitas"..he must have gotten the numbers crossed! (hee)

Anywho, I guess the most insulting part about that call was the utter ignorance of the caller, not even knowing that you were a "Clarkite."1/26/2006 11:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Clarkies...we were called Clarkies...1/27/2006 01:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/27/2006 03:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Travis|W|P|I never met a wingnut punk yet that you couldn't straighten out with a gym bag full of cash ... or a round from a .45 ...1/25/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Hey, anyone know why the Maricopa County Attorney tossed Sandra Dowling's office today? I don't know, I'm asking.|W|P|113825053592014626|W|P|In Other Republican Education News|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/26/2006 11:47:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ted,

Check out the story here: http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/

It's actually an investigation by the AG's office. (You don't really think Andie Thomas would investigate one of his own, do you?)

The great irony here is that she aroused suspicion and got in trouble after avoiding an audit by the Maricopa County Bd of Supervisors and now she's being investigated by the only other Maricopa County agency that has repeatedly refused to let the board review its books as well, the Sheriff's Office.

It's just another day in the Valley of the Scum.1/25/2006 08:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I attended Gabrielle Giffords's announcement yesterday. Yes, I am not even pretending to be neutral. Have a problem with that? When I worked for Gen. Clark's campaign, it used to frustrate my boss that I was bad at estimating crowd size. This is the reason why I can never be a real political reporter. I'll tell you that one of the patios at the Arizona Inn was packed. Some of the people were the people that have been raising money for Democratic candidates for years, but I also saw party activists, environmentalists, Latino activists as well as people involved in the gay community. By the way, for those of you who are short on knowledge about Tucson history. The Arizona Inn was built by Isabella Greenway after she came back from her service as Arizona's first woman in congress. See, symbolism and stuff. I'm waiting for Giffords to point out that Greenway liked roller skating too. Giffords was introduced by Dorothy Finley (who is a Republican!), her long time campaign chair Michael McNulty, Eddie Basha, and Rep. Raúl Grijalva. Dorothy Finley has been a long time Republican activist in town. I have heard some liberals concerned about the causes she has been associated with, but the support of the Republicans she hangs with will be crucial when Giffords is the nominee against Randy Graf. McNulty pointed out how many great Democrats have represented Southeastern Arizona. He named Lewis Douglas, Isabella Greenway, Stewart Udall, Mo Udall and Jim McNulty. What, Michael, no Harold "Por Qué" Patten? Your Dad wouldn't have missed that one... Grijalva's endorsement of Giffords is interesting. I was suprised when I heard that he was doing so. Let's face it, Grijalva and Giffords run in different crowds. Giffords has a lot to offer to progressive voters despite her reputation as a moderate. Liberal activists who may be uncomfortable with Giffords and her pro-buisiness record will probably give her a second look with Grijalva's support. Plus, la Maquina Grijalva can't hurt, even on the East side. Giffords gave an excellent speech, where she took some polite shots at her opponents' lack of legislative experience. She talked about what she was able to get accomplished in the legislature, as well as how she was raised to respect people of all cultures and backgrounds. Heck, that alone provides a great contrast to Graf. Patty Gelenberg-Weiss chose yesterday to announce that Tom Chandler is the chairman of her campaign. Chandler has helped lead the campaigns of Mo Udall, Jim McNulty, and if memory serves, was the chair of Grijalva's 2002 campaign (Clarification below). Chandler is a good addition to the campaign. Giffords has done a good job of building "inevitablility" by attracting many big Democratic party names. Picking up Chandler shows that Gelenberg-Weiss is going to have a serious campaign that can attract people that can help raise money. Also, I have to give some props to them for releasing the news on the day of Giffords's announcement to put a dent in some of Giffords's publicity. It shows some agility on the part of her campaign. Looks like we've got ourselves a race. CLARIFICATION: My memory didn't serve and Tom Chandler is Raúl Grijalva's treasurer and has been since 2002. R-Cubed regrets the error.|W|P|113824781230151253|W|P|Giffords Announcement; Gelenberg-Weiss Builds Team|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/25/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|We do, but again it's between Weiss and Bacal....1/26/2006 06:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Dorothy Finley may be a Republican, but she is not a ruthless partisan like a certain car dealer.

She contributed to my campaign in 2004. This perplexed me a bit, so I asked her about it the next time I saw her. Basically, her explanation was that she cared about the community, and wanted to support others who did as well. She seemed to value sincerity of purpose rather than specific policy positions.

This being said, I think I should mention that there were some rather well-heeled Democrats who wouldn't even give me the time of day. It is truly odd who ones friends are in this business.

Of course, most of my friends remain the sort of people who aren't in a position to write substantial checks to campaigns. Thank God for Clean Elections.1/26/2006 08:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/26/2006 12:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|i like how you keep using both her last names, Ted. way to help your candidate.1/26/2006 12:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|when is patty going to announce? i hear its soon!1/26/2006 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, i honestly don't know Patty and I don't get to vote, but I'll be brutally honest here, Gabby is hot and in a primary between what looks like two acceptable candidates, i got for the hot one.

... just bein honest1/27/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I just want to clarify before it gets my bro in trouble...this is a different Tom...

Back to your posts...1/31/2006 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/25/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Republicans went ahead and passed their "fix" to the English language learner's bill. Apparently, they thought that the fix would be decreasing the corporate tax give away from $850,000,000 to $50,000,000. I guess you can call that an improvement, but they did nothing to fix the numerous other flaws in the bill, such as the insignficant sum of money that is actually spent, the accounting tricks to make it look like they are spending more and the fact that it forces school districts to beg for money in a process that could be highly politicized. The Governor vetoed it this morning. Back to the drawing board. There aren't a whole lot of Republican elected officials that take advice from me, but here is something: why not try to speak to the Governor and find a nice compromise that actually addresses the issue instead of trying to sneak in massive tax give aways. I know you all think you are being clever, but Napolitano is a hell of a lot smarter than most of you are. Here's one for my friends in the local media: we keep hearing how our Southern Arizona Republicans are this wonderful moderating force in the legislature. Of Baja Arizona Republicans, only Toni Hellon and Pete Hershberger saw fit to oppose SB 1998, the much worse $850,000,000 give away bill that the Governor vetoed yesterday (R-Cubed props to them). The entirety of the rest of the Southern Arizona Republican delegation, all of whom are regarded as sensible moderates, thought that the bill was a great piece of legislation. So, let's ask people like Steve Huffman and Marian McClure why such a massive corporate tax give away (especially while memories of "alt-Fuels" are still fresh) was such a great idea. Also, let's ask them what the heck it had to do with teaching kids English.|W|P|113821991200095381|W|P|Just In Case They Didn't Get the Point the First Time|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/25/2006 01:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Weiers and Bennett must be threatening wayword GOP'ers with cutting funds for maintaining the roads in front of their homes if the Federal Government makes good on their threat to punish AZ by cutting highway funds if we don't follow the ruling on Flores.1/25/2006 03:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I always considered myself a strongly heterosexual woman.

Never thought I'd fall in love with a woman.

...but then again, she's got a bigger, brassier pair of cojones than any of the "boys" in the legislature, so I guess I'm safe. ;-P

Go Janet!!1/26/2006 01:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|anonymous:

She's already spoken for, by the majority of Arizonans, who can't wait to vote for her (reason #98 I'm voting early this year-- I won't have to wait as long to vote for Janet.)1/24/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The text of the Governor's veto message is available. That didn't take her long at all. Apparently, they are right now debating a for-real bill. Of course, none of them have had time to do anything stupid yet. Maybe they are still dazed from the slapping.|W|P|113815336923850819|W|P|Governor's Veto Message|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/24/2006 11:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I heard the crying all the way at my desk when she demanded the special session. What a big bunch of babies.1/25/2006 08:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|From the linked letter: "As we learned from the alt fuels debacle, the legislature should not authorize essentially unlimited tax credits without understanding the fiscal consequences to Arizona."


See also: Alt Fuels for Schools by Sam Coppersmith back in, gosh, March 2005.

Jeff Groscost, Ken Bennett, it doesn't matter who leads the Arizona GOP Legislature. Same as it ever was.1/24/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| So, the legislature passed what could charitably called a sham fix for our ongoing and well litigated English language learner problem here in Arizona. The bill delivered a paltry sum of money to the classroom, and used accounting tricks to make it look like more money was actually being spent. Even though this was the case, Governor Napolitano was prepared to go ahead and sign the thing, full well knowing that the judge who forced the legislature into doing this in the first place would hapilly throw it back and make the legislature do it again. Something odd happened though. There was a delay in the delivery of the bill to the governor. This struck some as strange. It turns out that the bill contained something that legislative leaders did not want the governor to see: a new corporate tuition tax credit. A tax credit that could amount to $850,000,000. This would effectively eliminate corporate taxes in Arizona. They do a massive tax giveaway to corporations and disguise it as help for needy students. There are words for this, but this is a family blog. Word has it that the gloves are now off, the Governor will veto the bill and call these guys into special session tonight. Maybe she'll lock the door until they come up with a real bill. I am not holding out hope for that. The talk is that the Republicans will probably call a pro forma session and immediately adjourn. Look for them to whine like spoiled seven-year olds the rest of the week.|W|P|113814708748094429|W|P|Did They Think They Could Get Away With That?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/25/2006 01:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ted, I hate that pic of janet... why do you keep using it?1/24/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
Never has the cold, clammy hand of constistency rested long upon my shoulders -Sen. Henry Fountain Ashurst
Like many political observers, I looked over the Behavior Research Center poll numbers with great interest. The poll shows Governor Janet Napolitano ahead of two of her possible opponents by large margins, beating Sen. John Greene 56-20 and Don Goldwater 53-21. The Behavior Research Center is well regarded for its accuracy by the local media. Although it seems early, this poll indicates massive support from the public and one wonders why anyone would even bother to mount a serious campaign against her. The Republican candidates ought to fold their tents, take up a new hobby and not waste their time. The poll also shows Sen. Jon Kyl beating Democrat Jim Pederson 55-26. Seems bad for Pederson, but these are great numbers for a largely unknown candidate against an incumbent. Pederson is in the perfect position to win this race. Besides, everyone knows that polls taken this early are notoriously inaccurate and are only measuring name ID. BRC specializes in marketing surveys, and this was probably yet another survey for Tide and they just attached political questions for publicity. Got it? Good.|W|P|113811453974178791|W|P|All Spin Zone|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/24/2006 08:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/24/2006 09:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|If nothing else has been proven in this blog, it's that Roger does not know much about politics. But even funnier is that Ted did a whole piece on PedersOn by mis-spelling his name each time! No wonder his poll numbers are bad, even insiders don't know who he is!1/24/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|*grin* Let me get this straight... 53 percent for Napolitano is "massive support" that should make opponents "fold up their tents," but 55 percent for Kyl is "notoriously inaccurate" and means his opponent is "in the perfect position to win."

Ah, Tedski.1/24/2006 09:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|To Anonymous #1-

Yes, I fixed it. I blame the low support for higher education on the part of legislative Republicans for the mistake. Either that, or I was thinking of former Attorney General candidate Lars Pedersen.

Anonymous #2-

Re-read the entry, check the quote at the beginning...then remember my reputation.1/24/2006 10:15:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It's about time someone acknowledged the ridiculous inconsistencies in partisan arguments.

Thank you, Tedski. I hope you continue to point these things out (on both sides) and not lower your thinking to the kool-aid brigade.1/24/2006 11:23:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Besides, everyone knows that polls taken this early are notoriously inaccurate and are only measuring name ID.

Could that be the same for Janet's numbers too?

Did Janet follow the coat-tails of Prop 202 in 2002 or did Prop 202 follow Janet's Coat-tails?
~Anon1/24/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|Comedy Gold, Ted, Comedy Gold...1/24/2006 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Someone beat me to pointing out the inconsistencies in Tedski's reporting of the gubernatorial and senatorial numbers!

Hey, Ted, I'm not surprised at the low numbers in either race. Look those candidates that scored low are just not candidates to get voters blood to run hot. Pedersen? He's a Jabba the Hutt look-alike that's rich and crooked. There's a TON to get voters to oust one of the most consistently conservatives we have the the US Senate. We get rid of Kyl and the Senate tilts hard left. That simply can't happen. The conservatives know this. Expect R voter turnout to be high in this race.

But as for the Gov's race...I must admit, now that the gorilla NapoliReno is in office, there's just no superstars facing her. Greene? Who cares? Greene couldn't even beat the right-wing religious wacko Andy Peyton Thomas in the R primary for AG! What in blazes makes him think he can either win the primary for gov. OR beat the pink gorilla? Greene's insane.

Len Munsil who chaired Center for Arizona Policy? Considering Thomas beat Greene, Munsil may beat Greene because the religious and conservative right may solidfy behind Munsil. But can Munsil take out Janet? I seriously doubt it.

Goldwater? He ain't no Barry. Munsil has a better shot.

I don't think the others are even worth mention.

Until Flake or Shadegg or Kyl or even Andy Biggs or Eddie Farnsworth run for Gov., my money is on the pink gorilla.1/24/2006 04:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|See, Tedski, the problem here is that conservatives have no sense of irony. This is why they find the alleged satire of Mallard Fillmore funny.1/25/2006 02:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/25/2006 02:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/23/2006 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake is now touting a "guest worker" program. He assures us that it is much better than Raúl Grijalva's plan. What makes it better? Well, he's not done with it yet, and doesn't have details. He doesn't know how it's better yet, or even where Grijalva's plan is deficient. His is just better because it is. This isn't the first time that Drake has shown himself to be unprepared to talk about issues facing the district and the country. Advice to Mayor Drake: take some time to read up, then come back and talk to us.|W|P|113804582814642638|W|P|Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/23/2006 11:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Even *I* knew something about my main topic when I ran for congress...even if I did not know everything.1/23/2006 09:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|"Slim" noted that I failed to mention anything about Rep. David Burnell Smith. I really meant to, but the entry was just getting too long. Even I have to cut down a little bit once in a while. The good news that Slim wanted me to write about was there was yet another ruling saying that Smith's violation of Clean Elections law rendered his election void and he needs to vacate his seat. Well, not vacate his seat since he holds it illegally. He has one more chance for an appeal, to the State Supreme Court. They may not want to hear the case, so his ouster could be de facto and not just de jure by the end of the week. It is becoming obvious, even to some Republicans, that his continuing to vote as a member of the legislature could put the legitimacy of some legislation in jeopardy. Also, this sort of side-show can't be good for the image of the Republican caucus. Smith has vowed in the past to appeal this all the way to the United States Supreme Court. He may just try that, but I wonder if he will be able to stay in office while doing that. State courts have stayed his ouster until the appeals have been exhausted, however it is questionable that they will allow that for federal appeals as well. I wonder why Smith continues to fight this though, as has been noted here before, Smith has the worst attendance record in the house. Obviosuly, he isn't too interested in representing his constituents anyway. Maybe he should just step aside for someone that may show up once in a while.|W|P|113803427346919629|W|P|Dude, Just Clean Out Your Office. We'll Help You If You Want.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/23/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I just hope he is actually out of there soon. To allow him to last until his term officially expires would clearly defeat the purpose of the clean elections act.1/24/2006 08:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/24/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yes...the Maricopa County Supervisors would get three names from Republican activists in his district. So talk that this is some sort of Democratic party coup is ridiculous.

I think though, that the County supes would be apt to appoint someone that is more moderate.1/24/2006 09:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/22/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There were plenty of things for me to write about that went on in the legislature this week, but I neglected to write about any of them. I don't really have a good reason for that. I was planning on making a reason up. I don't feel like it though. One debating tactic that I found amusing was the one used by Rep. Steve Yarbrough, who was pushing yet another so-called "school choice bill." Yarbrough scolded legislators that represent "minority districts" by saying that the minority community is clamoring for school vouchers. Being that I work in South Tucson with actual Hispanics, Native Amerians and African Americans, in alternative education no less, I wonder why I haven't heard about this. Apparently, winning a few thousand votes in a Republican primary in a lilly-white East Valley district qualifies you to speak on behalf of Arizona's minorities. I read early in the week about Sen. Linda Gray and her withdrawl of a bill restricting eminent domain. Did she withdraw it because of objections from some element of the citizenry? No, she withdrew it because there wasn't any. Yeah, whether or not a bill gets pushed through should be based on whether or not it ticks the right people off. Evidently, she was hoping from more opposition from the cities, but evidently they could live with the new restrictions, so she pulled the bill. In other words, the bill only existed to punish the cities. This is one of the things that galls me about the legislature. It seems that so many of the things that get done up there seem to be based on some grievance against government, schools or one segment of our community or another. Is this any way to run public policy? The governor vetoed four bills. The Republicans were suprised by this, but she vetoed the same bills last session. Did they think she'd forget or something? Maybe she'd slip up and misplace the veto pen: "George? Mike? Did I leave that pen at Matador?" Maybe they thought this was the Earth-Two Janet Napolitano, you know, it's that alternate earth where the Flash has the funny helmet and the governor is a right-wing toady that thinks that Jim Weiers is a heck of a guy.|W|P|113796242141480065|W|P|The Haps in the Lege|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/22/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Yo Tedski -

You forgot about the latest exciting update on The Human Stain1/22/2006 04:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I really meant to put that in...I'll get something up about it.1/23/2006 06:34:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail|W|P|Tedski wrote: "It seems that so many of the things that get done up there seem to be based on some grievance against government, schools or one segment of our community or another. Is this any way to run public policy?"

You mean this ISN'T how Republicans run the country?1/23/2006 12:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|While I agree with the substance of the comment, let me point out that, according to the Arizona Department of Health Services, Steve Yarbrough's legislative district 21 is 44.7% non-white, which works out to about 95,000 non-white residents of his district, which is probably comparable volume-wise to many other parts of the state not caricatured as lily-white. It is easy for those outside Republican strongholds to assume that everyone is homogenous; however, just like assumptions by Maricopa County residents about Southern Arizona bother Southern Arizonans, I thought this was worth pointing out. Our party has done absolutely nothing I am aware of to reach out to non-whites in areas that aren't historically non-white, and we have suffered as a consequence.
-Joaquin Rios1/23/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Joaquin-

Point well taken. I suppose I should have said something like "a lilly white Republican primary electorate" instead of characterizing his district that way.

It appears that his district includes Queen Creek, which has been far more hispanic, historically, than folks would think.

And, you have a very good point about the lack of outreach to such areas. The party, especially at the state level, has always assumed that talking to the same four or five "gatekeepers" is what will "turn-out" the hispanic vote. This seems to be done every time, whether or not those leaders are interested in turning out the vote. Some, have been detrimental to hispanic turnout in their areas.

One of the reasons I like Grijalva is that he has not tried to build his influence by demanding to be a gatekeeper, but instead by -gosh- actually turning out the vote for candidates.1/21/2006 06:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Late last month, Patty Weiss went about legally changing her name to Patricia Gelenberg Weiss. I don't think she needs any fancy polling to tell her that fewer people know her as Patricia Bryers Gelenberg than by her nom de guerre. This isn't unprecedented, by the way, I don't think anyone would have voted for an obscure suburban mayor named John George Janos for Governor of Minnesota if it had been his birthname on the ballot. But Jesse Ventura, that was a name they knew. There is even a local precedent. A certain John Scott Ulm ran for county supervisor and even served in the state legislature for a time, but needed a name change so he could be recognized as the local celebrity he was. He ran for office as John "C." Scott Ulm. Yep, John C. Scott was in the legislature. Even stranger, he was a Democrat then. Somebody asked me the other day if this will cause any problems with election law. No, the only thing that would is if she has collected a lot of signatures already. Given that she doesn't have many volunteers yet, I doubt this. And speaking of fancy polling, people have been e-mailing me for my opinions on that poll. A couple of y'all have been snickering at me for choosing a candidate that, in their estimation, is not "winning." I didn't realize that my job is to only support front runners. If that's the case, I'd be all about Jon Kyl. It doesn't take a political expert to know that a figure like Weiss would poll really well. She is a beloved figure in the community, and many of us are still angry about the shabby treatment that she recieved on her exit from KVOA. I've asked a number of people to send me details about the poll, and all I get is the same data. Well, it ain't data, it's a press release. Frankly, it doesn't tell me anything except what Weiss's campaign wants us to know. I have no doubt that Weiss is a formidable candidate, and what I see in the polling numbers reflects that. However, what sort of people were polled? Are these likely primary voters? I would imagine (I have to imagine, since I don't see numbers) that a sitting legislator like Gabrielle Giffords would do better among likely primary voters, and a candidate with a strong grassroots campaign, such as the one that Jeff Latas has already built, will do well in a primary but numbers collected in January can't measure that. One thing that I do find interesting though: in match ups versus Giffords or Weiss, Randy Graf gets the same percentage, 34%. This may be an indication that even against a candidate that is lesser known, he doesn't gain any votes. Does he have any appeal outside of Republican base voters? At the very least, there are obviously many Republicans willing to wait and hear from the Democratic nominee before making up their mind. The Star quoted Latas's reaction to the numbers:
"This was a name-recognition poll," said Jeff Latas, a former Air Force pilot and Gulf War veteran who was among the first candidates in the race. "I could have paid thousands of dollars for a similar poll with a slant toward national security and I think it would be obvious who would have the advantage."
As to his first point, yes, he's right. Any poll this early is on name recognition. Polls this early in the 2002 Democratic primary in District 7 showed former Senator Luis Gonzales doing very well, mostly because people didn't notice that his name didn't end in a "z." Latas should worry about Weiss's name ID, but his campaign is not going to be based on grassroots campaigning, not celebrity. The second objection is a canard that I hear from some candidates and others who don't understand the way polling works. A firm that "slants" numbers is going to quickly be out of business. You can bet that the actual polling data includes all sorts of data that may or may not be favorable to Weiss. She chose to release the bits that are easilly digested by local media and that are favorable to her, but I severely doubt that the firm was paid to make a poll that would make her look good. This is because such a poll would be useless in planning strategy for a campaign. There are much better ways of spending money that phonying up polling numbers just to get a press release. If anyone has more data from this poll, and not another press release, I'd really love to look at it. NB - I already am reading comments from Republicans saying that Weiss is some sort of egomaniac for thinking she is qualified to go from TV to congress. Why wasn't this a problem with J. D. Hayworth? Oh wait, he is an egomaniac. Bad example. Sorry.|W|P|113789261748912130|W|P|Patricia Bryers Gelenberg Cougar Mellencamp Griffith Joyner Kersey Weiss Von Habsburg|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/21/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger André|W|P|As I mention here, I bet that Weiss's own poll shows that among likely Democratic general election voters that know both Giffords and Weiss, Giffords has higher favorabilities.1/21/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|André-

Any thoughts on Graf's numbers in the poll?1/21/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger André|W|P|No sophisticated thoughts! I'm as in the dark as you are about the numbers we're not seeing in the Weiss poll. For example, I don't know what Graf's name recognition is, though I would have to think it's pretty high given that he's run in the district before.

It seems to me the conventional wisdom is that Graf is too out there to be the Republican's best choice to hold on to the seat. The Weiss poll appears to reinforce the conventional wisdom. Kolbe got 63 percent of the vote in the 2002 general and 60 percent in the 2004 general. If, indeed, Graf's name recognition is high and still nearly 30 percent of the voters that pulled the trigger for Kolbe can't do the same for Graf, that doesn't bode well for the Republicans or for Graf.

Of course, Graf's signature issue - immigration - may be at the forefront of the debate come November and who knows how out there he'll seem then? Especially given the tough immigration talk coming from unexpected places.1/22/2006 12:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/22/2006 10:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger André|W|P|Roger,

I would argue that not only is trying to bring new voters to the polls expensive, it's rarely effective. To me, getting people to vote for the first time is a public good - a civic responsibility - but it's no way to win election. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to change non-voters' aggregate behavior, and even then the only thing that will change it significantly is some huge issue, a sense that voting is part of some great cause. It's possible but not likely that this congressional election is going to mean that much to non-voters.

Getting voters to vote by mail is a whole different deal. It's expensive because it requires a lot of elbow grease - figuring out who you want to vote early, getting them VBM applications, following up to make sure they get their applications and then their ballots in, etc. But it's also effective because you're locking in your vote early, often before things have gotten really hot and heavy on the airwaves.

AP1/22/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/22/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger André|W|P|On a little different note, I wonder if Weiss has anything to learn from the the congressional run of George Clooney's father...1/22/2006 12:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|How about the obvious question: what name did they poll? Patricia Gelenberg Weiss? Or Patty Weiss?

And I'm going to lay out a $100 bet right now, for any sucker stupid enough to take it, that the name that got a 65% favorability rating in this poll is the same name that delivered the TV news for 30 years in this town.

Give me a break - Patricia Gelenberg Weiss? Who the hell's that?1/22/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I had asked this in another post and it went unanswered. I'll try it again, or maybe this is a question that can’t be answered?

Can anyone answer how Gabby has delivered for Southern Arizona and LD28 in her years in the AZ Senate? Every one talks about her record, but has she really brought home the bacon to LD28/S. AZ???1/22/2006 06:51:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I'm pretty sure that Secretary of State Brewer does NOT support vote-by-mail. I wonder why? Hmmmm.1/22/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Your comments about bacon to L28/Southern AZ are lame. State legislators, especially Dems, do enough by protecting the State from the right-wing wackos out the East Valley in Maricopa County. She voted in support of the Gov’s budget when in the Senate. You are grasping at straw with those comments. As if this State allowed pork for legislative districts, can barely get base level funding for education and that’s a fight.1/22/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|How much bacon has been available during the past few very lean budgetary years?

Also, "bringing home the bacon" is something that Democrats (and Republicans, Independents, etc) should be fighting AGAINST. With everyone fighting to bring bacon home and viewing the budget as the "commons", is it any wonder that the federal deficit continues to increase? Obviously the Rs tax cuts and war on IRAQ are big budget busters, but bacon acquisitions and the earmarks for lobbyist also add to the deficit.1/23/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I guess I should rephrase my question.

What has Gabby done for me as a LD28 resident in her time in the Senate? How has she represented me? I would hope more then just voting for the Gov's budget and "protecting me from East Valley wackos".1/23/2006 11:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Anon -

If you don't think "protecting you from east valley wackos" is such a big deal, you probably don't realize how much power they have and what they are trying to do.1/23/2006 02:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Glad to see another one that is seeing the King (maybe queen) is naked.

I, too have been asking what Gabby has done for me. All I get is the same old song and dance from the loyalist.

I want a fighter, not a conformist. Gabby has no spine and this is what's wrong with the part, backing the money candidate and not the people who can really change to system.1/23/2006 05:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/25/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dwight D. Leister:Chair|W|P|As a Candidate for Congressional District 8 and my family goes back to Arizona's Territorial days; name recognition V the fact it is about US not about ME and being able to work to get things done. I bet no one would associate me with Bring's Funeral Homes Inc. or Brown and Page Mortuary in
Douglas; Founding Tucson Federal Savings ; owning Olivers Cleaners;or owning the first AAA baseball team in Tucson in the 1950's "The Tucson Cowboys" that played at Hi Corbet Field, a name that appears in the paper every day caring for a families loved one?

Raul Castro used to write me with the letters addressed to Dwight Bringleister, so even he was confused!

Our phone number was 14 and we owned the first automobile in tucson,supplied all the pork to the City of Tucson from our Ranch that was located where the Tucson Auto Mall is today!

I know all the ways to get things done for you,and can hit the ground running!

I am amazed at all the Political want to bees that all of a sudden are the only people on earth who can walk and chew gum at the same time!
Dwight D. Leister:Chair
T.Mae Leister: First Vice Treasurer
www.dwightleister4congress2006.com1/21/2006 03:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The "Gandhi of the Balkans," Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova, has died of lung cancer at the age of 61. When the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government stripped Kosovo of its autonomy, Rugova led an effort to form an independent Kosovar society, complete with it's own schools and government institutions, to peacefully resist Slobodan Milošević's regime. Rugova was later elected president of the semi-autonomous Kosovar state that the UN now administers. His death unfortunately came on the eve of talks to address a permanent status for Kosovo, which will probably result in the independence that he dreamed of.|W|P|113788273957439257|W|P|Ibrahim Rugova|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/21/2006 07:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Dr. Richard Carmona made a barely noticed announcement on Tuesday that he will not be running for congress. Most people had already assumed that he was not going to make a go of it. Why no story about it on here? Well, I could say that I just didn't want to scoop C. J. Karamargin and Jim Nintzel. You know, let the pros get one in once in a while. Well...um...no...I just totally missed it. I'm not hearing Dave Sitton's name as much anymore, but I've been told that Bruce Ash has been making more moves towards running. Also, Nintzel named someone else new, a fella named Dr. Wayne Peate. Someone told me that Carmona had something to do with recruiting Peate, but I have no way of knowing this for sure. There is the possibility of another name on the Democratic side: Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman. I'm not sure how much of this is just talk, but apparently he has mentioned it to more than one person. Newman is the only Democrat on the board out there, and last year managed to get a victory when stopped an incinerator from being put in near Whetstone. He also previously served in the legislature and ran a nearly successful campaign for Corporation Commission. (The man who won, Tony West, had to be thrown out of office.) This is the only picture I could find of Newman, I'm assuming the men with him are the other two members of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors. We have another new entry in the governor's race: Rep. Ted Carpenter. Who? The talk at the legislature, what there was of it, was that Carpenter is termed out and this seemed to be a good way to move up. Rumors swirled about his running earlier in the week, but few people took it seriously. Carpenter is the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Insurance committee. That means he's the guy that makes sure that no one ever gets to vote on one of those pesky bills to protect service members and other working folks from predatory lenders. By the way, he announced his plans at a anti-immigration rally. At what point are there so many Republicans running on that one that it ceases to be an advantage?|W|P|113785765138810998|W|P|Who's Out, Who's In|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/21/2006 11:29:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|oh my lord...newman. ted you need to mention his two scandals last year.

coming out in a parade in cochise, with his re-election banner while driving the county car, burning county taxpayer gasoline.

second, being caught with a small amount of marijuana(what's small??)1/21/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I like Paul Newman and who knew both he and Alex Rodriguez would run for the same seat - but if he does join the fun, it looks like, yet another candidate finishing ahead of this websites favorites, Latas and Giffords....1/19/2006 08:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is from R-Cubed's Kansas Settlement bureau. The Border Patrol saw a guy driving a small truck containing several large bags, stopping at various houses in along Ft. Grant Road, between Willcox and the Graham County line. Our boys in green got suspicious and pulled the guy over and detained him for twenty minutes. Despite their rigorous law enforcement training, they missed the "Postal Service" T-shirt he was wearing, the fact that the bags bore the legend "US MAIL," oh yeah, and the "US MAIL RURAL LETTER CARRIER" sign on the side of the truck. That's right, they pulled over the mailman. Rick Encinas is a rural letter carrier. He is under contract with the Postal Service to deliver mail, so he does drive an "unmarked" vehicle, but they are usually easy to spot with the large sign on the side. Encinas, like any rural letter carrier, drives the same route almost every day. You'd think that a decent law enforcement officer would learn the routines and comings and goings in the area he is responsible for, wouldn't you? Especially since rural letter carriers become somewhat important figures in the communities they serve. The Border Patrol is claiming that Encinas was beligerent, a claim disputed by witnesses. They also said something to him that I find chilling:
We have every right to detain you as long as we want because we work for the U.S. government, too.
An agent once told something similar to my brother when he had the temerity to be driving on the Tohono O'Odham Nation, which is where he was working at the time. Of course, he is a long haired freak, so I understand. Whenever I hear about incidents like this, I always have to wonder if the incident would have occurred had the person involved been Anglo. Maybe they would have pulled him over anyway. I was pulled over once outside of Bisbee; despite my ancestry, I look Anglo. But, what are the chances that an Anglo that gets pulled over would be asked to prove citizenship? This is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with things like the new rules about identification at polling places or proof of citizenship to get other sorts of government services. Will an Anglo, immigrant or no, be given the scrutiny given to a native born Hispanic? Why should someone be made to have to prove themselves American because they have brown eyes and are a bit darker?|W|P|113772864205348454|W|P|Border Patrol Harrasses Guy Who Was Born Here|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/19/2006 09:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous la lucha|W|P|Ayy Ted, wish your headline was "man bites dog" caliber, but it's just too common place.. *sigh*

You know, the Department of Homeland Security can look through your stuff without a warrant, also!1/20/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P| I was pulled over once outside of Bisbee

My friend just got a ticket for doing 45 in a 40 in Bisbee. Are the cops down there super-bored?1/20/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail|W|P|One step forward two steps back.

In the sixties anyone looking like a hippy could be stopped. My brother (very anglo looking) with long hair and driving a station wagon through the south was stopped by police. His vehicle was searched. Everything was removed from the vehicle and left beside the road.

Since he had no drugs we can be gratefull they didn't frame him, I guess.

After taking up much time and making a disarray of his vehicle, the two policemen drove off laughing.1/20/2006 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim is simply shocked!|W|P|Shocked! The Border Patrol detaining and harassing a US citizen? Stop the presses! Please!

If the public had any idea what life near the US-Mexico border was like for the residents, Dems wouldn't be in the political fix we're in, with our super-popular moderate Democratic governor championing a military solution, and the lefties practicing their new mantra: "employer sanctions" (but let's not talk about the resulting "mass deportations").

With my own eyes, I saw a friend of mine -- a US citizen -- cold-cocked by a BP agent for being "beligerent". She was screaming at him to leave her alone, and he just opened her truck door and clocked her.

BP is a dumping ground for every flunky who couldn't make it in the police or sherriff or even CORRECTIONS. They'll take pretty much any asshole with a set of nungchucks, and issue them a gun and an SUV. But according to the media it's these jerks who's safety we should be worrying about.

It's this same jingoistic attitude we are being intimidated with in the war debate; we must all "support the troops", our "brave men and women in uniform". And when it's not an appeal to jingoism, it's an appeal to fear; it's about "security".

But there is nothing secure about this situation. There is only a downward spiral of militarization, impunity, danger, and death; a vicious cycle which has deeply compromised our security and is sending us careening headlong towards Orwell's nightmare.1/20/2006 03:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|ALL law enforcement these days are a bunch of goose-stepping, Nazi, fascist bastards. I have 2 law enforcers in my family and I offer them no quarter. There's a tangible culture among enforcers that all non-enforcers are criminals out to kill the officers. That's why you'll see the very boot the government keeps on our necks with their hands on their pistols as they approach your car. That's why if you dare mouth off, they'll slap you in cuffs, OR they'll falsely charge you with whatever they want (of course, the charges stick because the judges and cops serve the same paymaster: Big Brother! What percentage of defendant vs. cops cases have the judges decided in the accused's favor? Judges unbiased? Gimme a F'in' break!). Cops are trained to keep control of situations by intimidating those they encounter.

The idea of "decent" and officer in the same sentence is laughable! No intelligent or self-respecting individual would ever care to oppress his fellow man and the crimes we all know should be prosecuted the most heavily are not "predictable" crimes.

As for Bisbee handing out a speeding ticket for 5 over, I've always been under the impression that the fines were set so low as to be unprofitable from 0-9 miles over. That was one reason why cops didn't bother with speeders until they hit 10 miles over.1/20/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|new american rebel:

I'm going to have to take umbrage at that.

Are there some bad cops? Absolutely. We all know that. And do cops cover for other cops even when they do something wrong? Yes, we know that happens too. And I've had my own run in with questionable police tactics-- I was once involved in an automobile accident in Albuquerque. While I was in a temporary neck collar waiting for an ambulance, the ER's on the scene made a point of keeping me where I could not see my vehicle. But I could hear the cops riffling through. When I got it back later, there was some obvious non-accident related damage, such as my glove box being pulled out and dumped on the seat and a locking briefcase which had been forced open (which pissed me off more than anything else since it had belonged to my late father).

However, I have known plenty of police officers, and I know plenty of them now. Some of them are good people and they do a good job. Some of them even don't personally agree with some of the laws they have to enforce, but they do their jobs anyway. My son in law is a prison guard and wants to pursue a career in law enforcement. And he's good enough for my daughter, so don't be calling him a 'goose-stepping Nazi.'

There are, unfortunately always situations that require a police officer. And you say,

the crimes we all know should be prosecuted the most heavily are not "predictable" crimes.

True, but when they happen (and they do happen) they still have to be investigated (unless you want murderers and rapists free on the street). And when they are investigated, the perpetrators have to be arrested, tried and if convicted sent to prison. All of this requires law enforcement (since they rarely go completely willingly.) There are also crimes like hostage situations and domestic violence cases where the police arrive and have to deal with possibly irrational and dangerous people.

What we need to do is get idiots like these out of the law enforcement profession, and where necessary take real action to kick abusive cops out.

But I reject your premise that all (or even most) people in law enforcement are "goose stepping, Nazi, fascist bastards."1/21/2006 03:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|DHS out of AZ!1/19/2006 06:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Colorado Representative Tomás Tancredo is in town today to raise money for Randy Graf. I haven't heard of any sort of demonstrations against him. It is probably because it may be more worthwhile to let the guy's own words work against him. Here's something interesting the guy said once, well, not interesting, but revealing:
Brazil is a country, very eclectic in nature, you cannot look at anybody and say they are Brazilian. You have no idea.
And they say this isn't about race, how quaint. Tancredo seems to be buying in to the assumption that immigrants just aren't as "American" as the rest of us. This has been said about every immigrant group, whether they are Irish or Hmong. Also, Tancredo forgets that this country has had a significant Hispanic population since 1848 (one that can't be called "immigrant"), so thinking of them as "other" is ignorant. I don't know what sort of nationality "Tancredo" is, maybe Italian, maybe Portuguese, but I think if the congressman went back sixty or even thirty years, he'd see similar questioning of the "Americanism" of his immigrant ancestors. I've asked it before, and I'll ask again. Does anyone remember when Republican officials came out against PAN en masse? It was such a bad idea then, what has changed? One of those people that came out against it, no doubt saying at the time that it was racist, was Trent Franks. Franks will be appearing with Tancredo today too, of course.|W|P|113767881401032976|W|P|What Can I Say?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/19/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|PAN passed. That is why Republicans now think they can be what they already are.1/19/2006 05:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Tancredo is also one of those idiots who think that because we are fighting al-Qaeda (consisting of a few thousand Islamic extremists), therefore we are fighting Islam (one fifth of the people on the planet). His comment that we should 'take out' muslim holy sites in Mecca if terrorists attack us in the future is just destined to win us hearts and minds.1/19/2006 08:26:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What is "PAN"?1/19/2006 08:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Protect Arizona Now...it was an initiative passed last year that supposedly was about preventing illegal immigration, but seems to have more to do with supressing Latino voting.

Of course, that's just my opinion.1/19/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"PAN" "BREAD"....coincidence on suppressing us?1/19/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The good news about PAN is that the rules for the general will be in place for the primary, so by the day of the general election, the word may have gotten out better, and further, you can bet that people who have been forced to come in a few days later and vote becaused their driver's license still has their old address on it or something, will be boiling mad over it and are most likely to blame the Secretary of State. The bad news is, I don't know of any Democrats who are even considering running against her, much less have the resources it takes to make the race competitive (so that even if a few thousands of voters get angry enough to vote against her it wouldn't matter; But who knows, maybe some Democrat who could run a competitive race will realize that she stands to be the number one target for problems people have on primary day and that could make a difference if they can make it close.)1/19/2006 11:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|From Anonymous #1--

Thanks Ted for PAN definition!

One consolation--at least those rules won't apply to vote-by-mail and "early" voting.

Brewer has to go.1/18/2006 09:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss, although not a declared candidate yet, is apparently assembling a staff. As mentioned before, Frank Costanzo, formerly of the Howard Dean campaign, is on board. Dean's campaign in Arizona was impressive, but collapsed when the national campaign went downhill. Costanzo also worked for Paul Babbitt's unsuccessful 2004 campaign. To be fair to Costanzo on that one, he came on board when that ship was already sinking. She also has apparently been talking to Monica Perez, a former officer of the Arizona Young Democrats who ran for legislature in 2004. She is originally from Douglas and maintains extensive ties in the area. She also worked on Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez's gubenatorial effort in 2002. The campaign has also evidently come to an agreement with the Strategic Issues Management Group, a local public relations firm headed up by former Dennis DeConcini campaign guru David Steele. SIMG's offices are, oddly enough, located next door to Jim Kolbe's local office. I mean, right next door. This has nothing to do with anything of course, it is just sort of funny. A state senate candidate tried to make this an issue a few years ago when Steele's firm was working on an opposing campaign in a Democratic primary. The firm has worked on a number of local campaigns. They handled media for the Democratic coordinated legislative race in 2000, which helped result in the 15-15 Senate that was elected that year (full disclosure: I worked for that campaign as well). They also did work on the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, but also were involved with more contraversial work for the Mount Graham Telescope project. The campaign's biggest pick up is former Arizona Daily Star reporter Rhonda Bodfield. Bodfield will, of course, be handling press. She interviewed me once years ago; it took me a week to recover. She has been covering local politics for a long time, thus has extensive connections with the local media. Of course, so does the candidate. How is Weiss planning on paying for all this?|W|P|113764752573088317|W|P|Good Jobs at Good Wages|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/19/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/19/2006 11:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger LaMon|W|P|Gee, thanks Ted! Maybe now Weiss and the gang will really bring me on board. Thanks for "outing" me and the plug about my near success in '04.1/19/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|You should know not to tell Ted anything. His lips are always wide open yapping away.1/19/2006 12:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger LaMon|W|P|good advice, anonymous...don't know how Ted found out. wasn't me! maybe gabby wants to hire me and asked about me...ha ha.1/19/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|u forgot to mention she also interned w/ the enemy...i mean...Kolbe.1/19/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I guess anonymous #1 is mad that when I find out information that is interesting, I put it on here. Of course, you are reading this because I "talk too much," eh?

I didn't hear about Monica from her, and it wasn't told to me in confidence. Given the source I heard it from, I guessed that it was something that was already part of the zeitgeist.1/19/2006 01:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger LaMon|W|P|Ted, I'm just happy to be listed on this wonderful non-phoenix blog. Can you run a piece on Douglas or something?

Ted for Arizona '101/19/2006 01:51:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Maritza|W|P|Im supporting whoever Carmen supports.1/19/2006 07:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Monica- Writing about Douglas politics would just be dangerous.

Although I know a good story about a radio guy out there and the mayor...but see...it's all about discretion.1/19/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I suspect that we'll soon find out that Weiss may not be able to pay for much. It may still be a good race. I think the smart money is on Giffords.1/19/2006 08:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger LaMon|W|P|Ted..I love ya. There are no hard feelings. If anything I'll have 2 mins of fame and maybe my stock will go up with the CD8 candidates. I'm also glad some anony mentioned my intern days with Kolbe.

Please start a blog section on Douglas politics...I need to get dirt for my city council race. I'm the anti-Borane.1/19/2006 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|thank god Monica is not working for Weiss! I was beginning to get worried that Weiss was getting people who lost their own campaigns to run hers1/19/2006 10:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger LaMon|W|P|hillarious, anony # 534.

Ted-are you going to post the Celinda Lake poll?1/20/2006 06:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/20/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|Anonymous said...
thank god Monica is not working for Weiss! I was beginning to get worried that Weiss was getting people who lost their own campaigns to run hers

19 January, 2006 21:42

I didn't know the Tucson Weekly commented on your blog Ted.
;)1/20/2006 02:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Right now I'm a Latas supporter. My mind was made up in Patagonia. I would still like to know what Gabby has done. I've tried to find something and all I find is zip.1/20/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The first poll of the CD-8 election just came out and it shows a two person race with no other candidate having a legitimate shot. Believe it or not, neither Gabby or Jeff was anywhere near the front runners. The only two candidates with a shot to win the primary are Patty Weiss and Eva Bacal - both have support in the low 40% range of likely voters. All of the other candidates are closer to * than double digits. This website would have us believe the also-rans, like Gabby and Jeff actually have a shot. Save your money - this race does not involve them. It does not matter what kind of machine is in place if there are no voters to go along with them. Good people like Ted and Grijalva sometimes back losers (see Clark and Dean), but they are still great guys.1/20/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Can anyone answer how Gabby has delivered for Southern Arizona and LD28 in her years in the AZ Senate? Every one talks about her record, but has she really brought home the bacon to LD28/S. AZ???1/20/2006 08:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I was one that was polled. Believe me, this poll had nothing to do with issues, nothing.

No issues were in the poll. It was about names. Latas was only mentioned once in the entire poll.

The vast majority of the poll was Patty. The finial questions were if Patty had to run agianst Gabby. No one else! I wouldn't vote for either.

This is a meaningless poll for everyone with the exception of Patty. I could have done the same poll with Stalin and he would have been the winner.1/21/2006 01:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/17/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Report in the New York Times this morning says that FBI agents complained that the data gathered from the NSA wire-tapping program yielded little useful information and may have ensnared innocent people. One interesting 'graf from the article:

"The information was so thin," [one senior prosecutor] said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

The article posits that some of the criticism from the FBI was from interagency rivalry, but I'm hoping that this may lead to more scrutiny of what sort of people were actually targeted and whether or not any useful information was actually collected. NB - Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has a take on Al Gore's speech on this matter. Gore and Rep. Bob Barr had an event this weekend, which went nearly unreported except for the usual nattering about Gore being boring and some snickering about a technical glitch. Yeah, much better than talking about the substance of his speech.|W|P|113752112303584960|W|P|All That and Nothing?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/17/2006 07:18:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Avondale Mayor Ron Drake only announced a couple of weeks ago that he will be running for the Republican nomination for Congress. However, he had been talking about it for months before that. So, you'd think he'd be ready to answer a few questions, right? Not so. Shortly after his announcement, C. J. Karamargin asked him about his stand on the Patriot Act. Drake didn't know. Yeah, the Patriot Act can be a complicated beast. However, Drake himself had taken a stand on it before. In September, the Avondale City council passed a resolution critical of the Patriot Act and its effects on "fundamental civil liberties." Now, he claims he can't remember it. If this were something obscure like derregulating fisheries in the Puget Sound or New England dairy compacts, I think he could be excused from not knowing the issue. However, when it is something that is this much in the headlines, and something that he had taken a stand on before, one has to wonder if the guy is really ready for the majors. Also interesting, Drake apparently already has a gatekeeper of some sort, a guy named David Bridger. He has been acting as Drake's press seceretary. Bridger apparently gets angry when reporters ask Drake substantive questions. Reporters are only supposed to ask about how Drake revitalized that part of Avondale that isn't even in the district, I guess. Bridger, it is reported, has some sort of British accent. Has J. D. Hayworth, Randy Graf or Joe Sweeney checked the guy's paperwork? I mean, a red-blooded American boy could do that job, right? NB - Apparently, the reports of the demise of Political Notebook were greatly exaggerated. Karamargin will continue to do the column, but as a reporter covering the legislature up in Phoenix. As much grief as I threw Karamargin's way, it is a far more sustantive column than the Republic's Political Insider, whose authors seem to be really impressed with their own sense of humor. Also, just for kicks, check out Drake's photographs of his announcement. "A Whole Lot of People For Drake"? For some reason, I keep thinking back to those old ads for Fenster Ranch Camp.|W|P|113750971654960664|W|P|Don't Ask Me About Issues, I'm a Candidate!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/17/2006 10:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|But as much sugar, stevia, Splenda, Equal and Sweet-n-Low you put on both the "Notebook" by the failed food critic, and "Political Insider," by the Repulsive "Hack's Du Jour," it is still crap! A sorry state of affairs for the Grand Canyon State.1/17/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Drake is toast. No self-respecting Republican is gonna vote for this self-avowed moderate (just read his bio) who has typos on his website. Graf's gonna whip his butt in the primary.1/17/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Marcus -

You're an idiot. Drake may lose but he's not even running in the same district as Graf.

Drake is running against Grijalva. Graf is running for the seat that Kolbe is vacating.1/17/2006 10:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|As to the Avondale resolution re the PATRIOT act, it was passed on the council's consent agenda. So, either Drake was all for it, or he thought it so inconsequential, or uncontroversial as to not even warrant a public discussion of the matter. Either way, Drake is obviously running away from his record by claiming not to recall this matter.1/18/2006 08:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Hey, Anonymous, not an idiot, I just made a bad assumption. The article was unclear as to who Drake was running against. Since all the hype is about Kolbe's seat, I figured Drake was also throwing his hat in the ring for Kolbe's seat. I also thought I read something somewhere linking Avondale to the same CD as Tucson...further leading me to my erronious conclusion. So, I'm not an idiot, just not as connected as I'd like since I'm currently living in the Communist People's Republic of Maryland right now. Hey, since Maryland is such a "Blue State", why don't you lefty bloggers in Arizona move to MD and quit mucking up my beloved Arizona? THERE'S a spending program I could support: relocating Arizona Democrats to Maryland!1/18/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Dude...my family has been here for 210 years, and have been Democrats since the Gadsden purchase. Since so many Republicans I meet are translants, and the Native American and old Hispanic families tend to be Democrats, I have to wonder who is mucking up whose state?1/18/2006 06:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To ANONYMOUS/NEW AMERICAN REBEL--Please--If someone has incorrect facts, that person is "misinformed"--not an idiot.

HOWEVER--"Idiotic" is referring to Maryland as the "Communist People's Republic of Maryland". "Idiotic" is supporting relocation of people who think or believe differently than you do. Also, as far as I know, it's been mainly Communists, Facsists, and Nazis who have "relocated" groups of people. So New American Rebel--are you a Communist, Fascist or, perhaps, just a plain Idiot?1/19/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Touche, Tedski. Born in Memphis TN, but have lived in Arizona since about 3rd grade except for my time in law school and the past year. I guess I'd be considered a transplant by your definition, but Arizona is really home for me as far as I'm concerned. Both my immediate family and my wife's live in Phoenix as well. Arizona politics is exciting for me, and Maryland politics is just plain boring.

CC Burro, "idiotic" is not catching on to the fact that my final comments in my previous post were CLEARLY tongue-in-cheek, even accounting for emotion being hard to discern in online writing. Being a libertarian-leaning individual, I do NOT support relocating anyone based on their beliefs. I also loathe government spending. So, I'm not a communist, fascist, or Nazi...or an idiot for that matter. I'll leave relocations to those on the left, like what the National SOCIALISTS did to the Jews in Poland after Germany invaded in the WWII era.1/19/2006 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To NEW AMERICAN REBEL--

Sorry--I took your relocation remark seriously when it was not meant so.

The National SOCIALISTS also persecuted or killed COMMUNISTS, gays, Eastern Europeans, etc. I don't think there was much about the Nazi party that was socialistic.1/16/2006 08:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|113742431973923541|W|P|A Change Is Gonna Come|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/15/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Many of us leftish types think that if Randy Graf is nominated, the election would naturally belong to the Democratic nominee. Graf cut a very conservative figure in the state house, and I believe is far to the right of most voters in Southeastern Arizona. But, will the Graf the candidate be the cartoon character that advocated guns in bars on The Daily Show? The right wing of the Republican party, especially the anti-immigrant right, is owned by Graf. This, plus the fact that there seems to be no serious moderate challenger to him in the primary, has enabled him to already make stabs at the moderate vote. If you don't believe me, check his website. There on the front page is a (very selective) listing of his legislative accomplishments: expansion of access to state parks, encouraging energy conservation, keeping tuition down and whistleblower protection. It almost makes him sound like he's Phil Lopes. Don't get me wrong: I think Graf is an example of what is wrong with our state's politics, particularly in the legislature. He can be intollerant, close-minded, a bully, and yes, at times, ignorant. But, the man did not get elected accidently. We would do well not to under estimate his political instincts, or his ability to reshape his image.|W|P|113737322699990154|W|P|Randy Graf: Not the Moron You Think He Is|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/16/2006 08:14:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Moderate? First endorsement listed is Phyllis Schafly's Eagle Forum PAC.1/16/2006 08:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|C. C....I didn't say that he actually is a moderate, I just said he'll pretend to be.1/16/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Keeping tuition down? This is the guy that consistently supported the majority's anti-university, anti-Pima County budgets.

He does deserve a lot of credit for his work for the State Parks, however.1/17/2006 09:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I think Ted is right; Graff should not be underestimated. I, and most of the readers here, no doubt, disagree with every Graff stands for, but don't think that just because YOU see through his bullshit as he reaches for more moderate voters, that everyone else sees as clearly, or weighs his new personae aginst his past performance.

Holding Graff's feet to the fire publically for his past actions, statements, and affiliations is going to be a major task in the CD8 general election, and part of that task falls to the 'netroots'.1/18/2006 11:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Since the GOP no longer considers the Renzi race a danger, they're going to throw all kinds of money behind Graf, should he win the primary. He's got a race under his belt and he's been campaigning continuously. He knows what emotional buttons will mobilize his base.

The Dems CANNOT walk into this election and assume it's going to be a wide-open race. They must campaign as underdogs.1/18/2006 07:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/18/2006 07:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/19/2006 12:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Well, Dubya got selected, and then elected for real.

Which proves that there is no flaw so great that the GOP can't cure it with a good P.R. campaign.1/19/2006 02:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Did it ever occur to you that there are Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans (though not as many as 30 years ago) that may be passionately to the "left", "in the middle", or to the "right", depending on the issue? Do you follow the party line on ALL issues?

People's support or non-support of limited government also depends on the issue and who is in power. A lot of Democrats and civil libertarians would like to "limit" the federal government when it comes to spying on its citizens or telling the states to limit the right of a women to decide whether she has an abortion. Likewise, Republicans like government to be very "active" when it comes to legislating on the issue of abortion, school prayer, etc.

Re college tuition--When I first moved here, U of A had ridiculously rock-bottom-priced tuition--I don't know how they paid even the electrical bills. They needed to raise the tuition. However, the smart thing to have done would have been to raise the tuition, yet have AMPLE grant and loan funds available for means-tested students who maintain at least a B average or something like that. The state shouldn't be subsidizing college for those who can afford it any more than they are doing already [particularly in the case of those students who are partying more than studying].1/19/2006 08:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/19/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/19/2006 11:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|TO KRAMAJALES--

Yes, if my memory is correct (?), it was former Democratic Georgia governor Zell Millner who is responsible for the HOPE program being initiated in Georgia in 1992. Something good that came out of someone who turned out to be bad...

I understand your frustration. This past year I read an editorial in Time (?) magazine--my memory of the article is not good, but it went something like this--the writer indicated that Progressives have relied upon the Courts (lawsuits) to enforce their views on the country instead of trying to promote some of their views through more educative/engaging/effective means. The Republicans have been very good at promoting their views--Democrats have not. I think the Democrats have been complacent, lazy because they were the majority party for a long time. [Prior to recently, how much real grass-roots organizing/educating activity have Democrats/Progressives been engaging in in Pima County?]

How often do Progressives talk to moderates and/or conservatives to understand where they are coming from and to seek common ground? This needs to be done before you can hope to persuade them to your point of view.

Also, the Democratic party will not become the majority party again unless Democratic "Moderates" and Progressives work together. Can you accept that there are Democrats who are against the death penalty and also against abortion? Or Democrats who support raising the minimum wage but who have mixed feelings re unions? Or Democrats who support gay marriage but do not support affirmative action (quotas)? The Democratic party is diverse--continuing to view sincere Democrats who do not follow the party line on every issue "Republican lite" is a good way to stay a minority party.

Lastly, the best tonic I have found for my frustration has been to get active and do something useful to promote change.1/20/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/20/2006 07:52:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|You are so right. A lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with their party--some because of hte cultural conservatism that dominates the party, some because of the humungous (spelling?)federal deficit that the Rs are running, some because of the corruption/cronyism.

For a long time, I was an Independent who normally voted Democratic. However, with the ascendancy of Bush II and Company, Inc., I've become a Democrat. The Republicans continue more and more to push their moderates out of office and out of the party all over the country. It's political suicide for the Democrats do the same thing.1/15/2006 07:53:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, where is the moderate Republican candidate to run against Randy Graf? Ray Carroll announced he is out, and Rep. Jonathan Paton has military obligations. What about the rest of y'all? By the way, Carroll gave "family reasons" to opt out. This is one of those rare times in political history where that excuse is true. I believe that "family reasons" was first used by one of the brothers Gracchi. As for the rest of you, Toni Hellon, Bob Walkup, Dave Sitton, Steve Huffman, you know who you are. Say something. I'm calling you out. Are you going to take the plunge or not? I know I always give you moderates grief for not being more agressive in fighting the nitwits that have taken over your party, but man, y'all don't need to prove me right.|W|P|113733774448675837|W|P|I'm Calling You Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/15/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|If you want moderates to come out of the woodwork, the brothers Gracchi are not the best reference to bandy :)1/15/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well...I just needed to be pedantic, you know how I am.1/15/2006 06:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|Seeking the Great White Mild Whale...

Yes. I am kidding.1/15/2006 08:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Mike Jenkins? His people have contacted me...1/14/2006 02:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|During the Senate confirmation hearings on Judge Samuel Alito, the subject of his membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton was brought up, then quickly pooh-poohed by Republican Senators and the Conservative media. Apparently, membership in a racist organization is okay. Unless it was sixty years ago and your name is Robert Byrd. Alito's supporters claimed that he only joined the group in protest of Princeton's ban on the ROTC. ROTC had been forced to leave campus in 1970. By the time Alito graduated, however, the Army had returned to campus and the administration was negotiating a return for the Navy and Air Force. A few months later, Concerned Alumni of Princeton was formed. The ROTC issue was at best tangential. The group's main aim was to go back to the days of, in the words of founder Shelby Cullom Davis, "a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds." Of the Ivy League schools, Princeton was among the last to integrate. Long after other colleges had gotten rid of them, they had limits on the numbers of Jews, and ironically in Alito's case, Catholics. Princeton did not even let in women until 1969. The group continued into the 1980's (long after any spat over the Army on campus was resolved), when the organization's newsletter had an essay entitled "In Defense of Elitism" which stated:
People nowadays just don't seem to know their place, Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.
Yeah, definitely sounds like it was all about the ROTC. Alito's involvement with the organization may have been tangential, but his claims that he didn't know what they were doing ring hollow. High profile alumni had made their position on the organization known for some time. For example, one alumnus, Sen. Bill Bradley, joined the organization, then ditched it and denounced it when it became obvious what they were actually about. Another person that denounced the organization was an obscure Tennessee Heart surgeon named Bill Frist, who is probably some sort of socialist, right? The thing that is most telling to me about ths incident is that, whatever Alito's actual involvement in the organization, he felt the need to proudly claim membership when he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration. Why would a guy who is not a racist (I don't know the guy, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) feel the need to affiliate himself with such an organization to get a job? It doesn't say a heck of a lot about the modern conservative movement.|W|P|113727518526847501|W|P|What Really Ticks Me Off About Alito|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/15/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/13/2006 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Is it okay for me to write nice things about a Republican? Gawd. Maybe there is something wrong with me. Maybe I need some meds. You know, the really good ones. I wrote before about Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes and her doubts about Arizona Public Service's request for a 14% "emergency" rate increase. Mayes has now sent APS a letter that shows that she has some serious doubts about whether APS looked at other cost cutting measures. She starts out right away with a challenge that will warm the hearts of every populist:
As you know, in 2004 APS paid to its top executives more than $3 million in bonuses, on top of the base salaries that these executives received.
Tell 'em about it. Hit 'em where it hurts. Let everybody know. Fear baby, fear... Sorry...she continues:
Have top managers considered forgoing some or all of their bonuses for 2005 and 2006 to reflect the performance of Company management and to help defray some of the costs the Company is seeking as part of its rate filings? If not, please explain why.
Yes, please explain why if your company is doing poorly, the execs are still getting rewarded. We are waiting. And more...
Similarly, I would like to know whether the Company has contemplated cutbacks in non-essential travel in 2006, including but not limited to any first-class travel by company executives. If not, please explain why.
Beautiful. I am in love with this woman. Is that wrong? She further points out that APS is still spending large amounts of money on advertising, even though they are a monopoly. She also asks if the company has contemplated dividend cuts and why other units of Pinnacle West have been given capital infusions, but not APS. I have a feeling it is because they thought they could roll the rate hike through the Corporation Commission. I'm sure that some will argue that Mayes is being overly punitive to APS. People that make this argument miss the whole point in our having a Corporation Commission. They are there to make sure that the rate payers are protected from companies that just see them as a cash cow. She sees her role, as have our more successful commissioners in the past, as making sure that a company has exhausted all other means of cost saving before working families bear the burden of their business decisions. When a consumer is paying their bill, they would like to know it actually is paying for power, and not paying for some exec's travel. Let the company swallow the costs of the frills and let them explain it to share holders.|W|P|113719893039165813|W|P|Some Questions for Arizona Public Service|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/13/2006 07:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I'm in love with this woman too!

I'll never forget this article I read years ago in which a Japanese writer was comparing the salaries of Japanese executives with those of American executives. Apparently, the American executives were getting a gazillion (spelling?)dollars more then the Japanese executives. This writer thought it particularly absurd/illogical that American executives who were LOSING money for the companies or doing a bad job were still getting a gazillion dollars. Where are the boards of directors for these companies???1/14/2006 02:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Off not paying attention to the company they "direct"1/14/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The problem is that with five Republicans on the Corporation Commission, Mayes (who, if they can't corral with the rest of them, the Republicans will segregate by pointing out that she was Gov. Napolitano's press secretary before being appointed to this position), becomes a lone voice in the wilderness. For her to be effective, we need to get at least two more positions, who are either Democrats or at least like minded Republicans, and both of these are uphill struggles, as recent elections for the commission have showed.1/13/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I noticed that a week old post on Patty Weiss was still generating responses, thrity-six of them. Mostly, it was a place for those of you that are supporting the various candidates to make your case for them. I understand this. But, now that post is quietly slipping off of the bottom of the page. Since it will be hard to get to, I'm posting this as a new place for y'all to fight it out. It's an "open thread," just like the classy blogs. And, as we all know, this primary will be won or lost on this blog. By the way, I left the "anonymous" feature open on the comments, but that is only because it allows non-blogger members to post. I'd prefer it if you came up with some sort of name for yourself. I ask this for no other reason that it is a lot easier for people to respond. That way you don't get posts that look like:
Hey, Anonymous, no not you, the other Anonymous. How can you say that about Jeff Latas? And you, the other Anonymous, have you read the newspaper lately? Do you read at all?
Also, note that that particular response was a bit personal. It's still so early, but people are particularly committed to their candidates. Let's keep it somewhat high minded. And that includes the person that was mad about one candidate getting a little grabby with her, you know who you are. I know that many Jeff Latas supporters have been posting here. Someone told me that this was "orchestrated" by the campaign. So what if it was? It shows a level of organization on the part of the campaign. You guys keep posting on here. Yes, I am still supporting Gabrielle Giffords. The rest of you can post to convince others, but it ain't going to work on me. She understands what it takes to win the election, and she has already built an impressive fundraising base. Yes, the DLC ties can be frustrating, but I would urge you to look at her record, where she has earned plaudits from progressive groups such as the Sierra Club. I've heard the knock that she doesn't publish long issue papers on her website, but I expect the website to be updated when she actually declares (it is still her Senate site with only a few modifications). However, she has a bit more than "issue briefs" to run on, she has an actual progressive record. Of course, after she wins the primary, I'll be talking about what a moderate she is. I'm a political weasel that way.|W|P|113716175591643647|W|P|CD-8 Open Thread, Just Like Daily Kos|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/13/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/13/2006 09:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|The first candidate forum in Patagonia is happening THIS COMING Sunday, January 15th.1/13/2006 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/13/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|How kind of you, Ted, to accomodate your adoring fans. Pandering to the masses...hmmm...are we going to have to start a Draft Tedski (for CD8) movement?
;)1/14/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|TO TEDSKI--Do you know Gabrielle Giffords views on any of the following: NAFTA, free versus fair trade, unions, and the perennially high U.S. trade deficit?1/14/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|How about her views on Wal-Mart, China, and her views on Iraq and the now bombing of Pakistan.

I would guess that she has never run on clean elections money she would be against any reform in the federal election campaign finance reform.1/15/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Please no DM3...Ted should actually move to CD1 and run...why I have no idea but it makes as much sense.1/15/2006 07:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You've never taken clean elections money either.

I have not heard of her opinons about campaign finance reform. I won't try to guess what they are by making the logical leap you are. Do I need to bring back Batroc?

She didn't take clean elections money in 2000, but many candidates did not, since people were still doubtful about the viability of the system. In 2002, she was talking about opting out of it, but she ended up having that decision made for her since she had no opponent. She was also without an opponent in 2004.

She attended private colleges, I suppose that means she is against state universities, right?1/15/2006 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/15/2006 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Just got back from the Patagonia forum. No doubt, Latas the winner.

I was pretty neutral until the event. There is fire in that belly!1/15/2006 11:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I also attended the Patagonia forum--huge crowd. The candidates all did well in conveying the values that have attracted me to the Democratic party.

However, they all need better preparation and practice. [It was obvious that some candidates prepared more then others and some candidates were winging some of the answers to questions, questions which they were given well before the forum by the AZ Borderland Democrats.] Some answers to the questions were well organized whereas others were incoherent--not yet ready for prime time.

These candidates need to take these forums seriously and spend more time preparing. The next forum is the DFA forum in early February in Tucson, I think.1/18/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Grijalva backing Giffords...is this race over?1/18/2006 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Politics of personal friendship should not be confused with electability. Raul has to back Gabby because of his staff. Patty Weiss is still the best candidate.1/18/2006 06:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/20/2006 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The first poll of the CD-8 election just came out and it shows a two person race with no other candidate having a legitimate shot. Believe it or not, neither Gabby or Jeff was anywhere near the front runners. The only two candidates with a shot to win the primary are Patty Weiss and Eva Bacal - both have support in the low 40% range of likely voters. All of the other candidates are closer to * than double digits. This website would have us believe the also-rans, like Gabby and Jeff actually have a shot. Save your money - this race does not involve them. It does not matter what kind of machine is in place if there are no voters to go along with them. Good people like Ted and Grijalva sometimes back losers (see Clark and Dean), but they are still great guys.1/21/2006 01:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/21/2006 03:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger André|W|P|As Weiss proudly points out on her website, the whole district falls within the range of the station from which she once broadcast news. Of course her name recognition is through the roof. Meanwhile, Eva Bacal benefits from the loser's glow. Remember who was leading all the presidential polls back in 2003? Joe Lieberman. Nothing like losing to get you known.

Extrapolating from the numbers in the Weiss release, my guess is that among voters that know both Giffords and Weiss, Giffords favorable ratings are higher. And Giffords is showing that she's going to have the resources to get her name known.

It's going to be an interesting race.1/22/2006 10:29:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Patty polled at 65% favorable. I'd bet a much higher percentage recognized the name. They apparently don't think that she has any business running for Congress.1/11/2006 09:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, today Sen. Bill Brotherton had an ammendment in front of the Senate to ask that companies recieving a tuition tax credit prove that they are hiring workers legally. So, of course, these Republicans that are so eager to talk to tough about illegal immigration fell all over themselves to support the bill. Not really. In fact, none did. Not a single Republican Senator voted for his ammendment. Brotherton introduced a second similar ammendment, and every Republican save Sen. John Huppenthal voted against it. So, I guess all of this anti-immigrant rhetoric is talk. If I were a person that liked to play the race card, I may wonder why they talk tough when it comes to the brown face that crosses the border, but they get real quiet when it comes to the white face that does the hiring. The Republicans love to talk about markets. Well, they must understand that if employers are allowed to continue to hire illegal aliens with little or no sanction, then they will continue to come over here looking for work. The network of smugglers, safe houses and coyotes can operate because businesses, including some very large ones, have created a climate where running illegal aliens is profitable. Maybe they have listened to their own rhetoric for so long that they believe it. You know, this talk that somehow thousands of people are braving the desert because they are all shiftless welfare cheats hoping to sponge off of the taxpayers, oh yeah, and vote. They have been saying this for so long that they forgot that these people are crossing because there are jobs waiting for them.|W|P|113704199216550071|W|P|I Guess They Really Don't Mean It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/11/2006 10:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|Punish the workers for being illegal, reward those who hire them with tax cuts.

Perfect. Obscene and hypocritical, of course, but perfect, in its own Republican kind of way.

Class warfare redux.1/11/2006 10:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Shane Wikfors|W|P|Thought you might like to see who has been caught hiring illegals.


Simply do a search on Arizona and lo and behold, you come up with a lengthy list of companies caught in the act.1/11/2006 11:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Peep|W|P|Hey, why isn't Walmart on the list? or McDonalds, for that matter..

The truth is, most companies hire the undocumented. This is the reality. Our economy depends on people to fill these jobs.

Um..the website has like 5 businesses..what the? 2 mexican restaurants and a Mr. Gonzales? well, I'll be durned, it's the Mexicans that hire the Mexicans! Scandalous!1/12/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/12/2006 04:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Good post. Like it will really prevent people from coming if we tell them, 'Don't come, but there's a job waiting for you when you do.'1/12/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|to Shane

You know how I know YOU hire aliens?

Because you have a website that says "we hire aliens."1/13/2006 01:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Conservatives want to make immigration their big rallying cry.

But with their not being willing to back efforts like this to dry up the job supply, and the Bush administration hiring a crony (as you pointed out the other day) to run the immigration battle, it is clear that they aren't serious about it.

It's more about how immigration is what gay marriage was last time. An issue that Republicans use (but don't take a serious tack on) in order to divert attention from their failures on health care, education, Iraq, declining job quality, gasoline prices, the budget deficit and the Abramoff scandal.

It works for them sometimes too-- if they can get enough people stirred up over one or two issues (regardless of whether they are actually serious about addressing them) then people sometimes lose track of the really important issues.

In fact, it's getting worse. When the 'issue-du-jour' was, for example, gun control, at least it wasn't about targetting any particular group of people. But their two biggest issues now, gay marriage and immigration both have a distinctly bigoted undertone.1/14/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Reality check needed--this is not a peripheral issue to the people living down in Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties. Read the Leo Banks article, Tucson Weekly, August 11, 2005.

$10 a head of lettuce?
In 2002, average hourly wage for farm worker was $7.25/hour (including figuring out hourly wage for workers paid by the amount harvested). How much more would they need to pay legal residents/citizens/guest workers to do this work?
DATA from-- farmhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/agworker/report9/chapter5.htm1/11/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The first few bills have passed the House. You will all be happy to know that the legislature has made it their first priority to make sure that bills that were vetoed last session will be sent to the Governor in the same form this session, so they can get vetoed again. These guys have noticed that it is still the same governor, right? The bills that have already been voted on include a rerun of a voucher bill and a rather arcane act dealing with the Tourism and Sports Authority. My sources tell me that the latter bill is just an attempt to limit the Governor's power. Yeah, she'll be all about signing that, just like she was last year. Another bill attempts to put some federal money into the general fund. The bill is clearly a violation of federal law, and that is why it was vetoed. Guess what: it is still a violation of federal law, and will be vetoed again. Expect the Republicans to be shocked, shocked, when the Governor vetoes these bills again. There's a big difference: when Captain Renault uttered those famous words, he was not believing what he said. These guys always seem to be genuinely suprised. They remind me of my mom's old cat. That cat would sit on a table knocking stuff to the floor. Every new thing the cat would knock down, she would stare at suprised that it fell straight to the floor. Then, she'd do it again. I'm not sure what they think they are accomplishing by doing this. Maybe they think Napolitano will mess up and sign the bill anyway. One bit of good news: the Senate has apparently begun work on the English Language Learners bill. Maybe this time, they'll give it to the governor in a form in which she can actually sign it. Maybe, they wont have their staff lie about what is actually in it. Hope springs eternal.|W|P|113703712941761918|W|P|Not Follies Yet, But Give Them Time|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/12/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P| the Senate has apparently begun work on the English Language Learners bill. Maybe this time, they'll give it to the governor in a form in which she can actually sign it.

Ha! Ha! Yeah, right. I'll hold my breath for that.

Maybe Janet will actually get money from Rumsfeld to put National Guard troops on the border. hee hee.

Maybe she'll actually sign the corporate tuition tax credit she agreed to sign last year. LOL!!

Maybe all of them will put aside their part petty partisan differences, ignore the extremist idiot activists in their respective party machines, act like adults and work together to get things done.


Sure. Sure. Delusions spring eternally.1/12/2006 11:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The problem with that corporate tuition tax credit was that they gave it to her in a form that they knew she wouldn't sign. These are the sorts of games they play.

Yeah, keep saying "activists on both sides," but remember who is actually running the legislature.1/12/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ah, but Ted, now they're going to give it to her with the sunset provision she asked for and now she's saying that she's not going to sign it.

And it doesn't matter who is actually running the legislature, both parties are equally guilty of playing games (Brotherton played this amendment game last session). While they play cute and try to score points with their bases, real policy decisions aren't made, realistic and sustained reform is ignored and real Arizonans suffer.

All I ask of you is consistency, Tedski. If you ding one side for playing games, ding the other.1/10/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I attended a meeting of the Pima County Board of Supervisors this morning. The biggest item that was being discussed was whether or not to place the selling of bonds for Kino Hospital on the ballot. $54 Million in bonds will be on the ballot in May. $18 Million will go to expanding the emergency room, with the remainder going into building a new psychiatric facility. Among the people that spoke on behalf of the bonds was Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Dupnik and other law enforcement professionals believe that up to 10% of the jail population is mentally ill. Dupnik said that the jail is acting as the largest mental health facility in Southern Arizona. This is of, course, totally unacceptable. Dupnik hopes that an expanded Kino Hospital will both ease the burden on law enforcement and be a great resource for the community. There also was a rather poignant speech by a gentleman who is both diabetic and bipolar. There are services available for his physical illness, but they are not as available for his mental illness. Vice-Mayor Steve Leal forcefully spoke on behalf of the bonds as well. Those of us that know Leal were suprised that he kept his comments well under the three minute limit. Representatives from South Tucson and Marana were also there to support the bond issue. Although the issue passed unanamously, there was some concern about "tying" these bonds to the probably more contraversial Regional Transportation Plan. The items will be on the same ballot but voted on seperately, so they aren't really tied. Having the issues on the same ballot will bring out more voters and heighten public interest, which can only be a good thing. By the way, I don't know where I am on the transportation issue. Frankly, it is mostly because I haven't taken the time to look at it closely. I am very concerned about plans for the Grant Corridor and how they may effect businesses and residents. However, I am reassured to see that Steve Farley has taken an interest in shaping the way the plan wil be carried out. This morning's meeting was a really great moment for the community. Not a single speaker spoke in opposition, and everyone there had banded together for services for people who are often forgotten. NB - I spoke to Supervisor Ray Carroll, who told me he is a reader of this blog. I knew that his galloglass, Scott Egan, is a reader as he has posted before. Geez, there's another local politico I can't talk smack about. Who knows? This may leave me with no option but to run for office myself.|W|P|113693634414211845|W|P|Kino Hospital Bond Election|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/10/2006 11:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Gosh, Ted, it sounds like a great meeting, but you missed the big story-- how come Jim Weiers knows how to get hold of a guy in Louisiana who he says can clear him, but he isn't willing to share his location with the Mesa police department.

Not wanting the police to find and interview a guy who you claim could clear you-- that adds up like a deuce and two kings in a game of blackjack.1/11/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Gosh...you're right...I shouldn't write anything about the need in my community for mental health services for the indigent. Instead, I should throw a couple of bombs at Jim Weiers way.

I'm sorry if the troubles of the poor and mentally ill in Southern Arizona don't interest you.1/11/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Pima County seems to like to pass bond elections, so I would think that the Kino one will do well. Especially since Dupnik is supporting it. I think that if his message gets out, the voters will follow him. As far a the emergency room goes, we have had to go to the emergency room there, and the doctors were very good. The equipment seemed old. You never know when you will need to go to an emergency room or what part of town you will be in at the time, and you always want the closest one to be as up to date as possible.

As far as the transportation plan, nothing is perfect, but there are some good parts to it. It has the modern streetcar in it, which will link a number of major trip centers and drive new housing along the route. Plus, all those people living on the northwest side can't drive on those little farm roads forever.1/11/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/11/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|He did not give a lesson in Philosopy?1/11/2006 10:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well said, Tedski. I for one am glad you posted this. The sheriff is right. Mental illness is the root cause of a lot of crime, not just in Pima, but all over Az. Too often the mentally ill can't get treatment so they self-medicate with drugs, which then leads to crime. There are very few services available for so-called "dual diagnosis" patients who are mentally ill and drug addicted. If we can increase the number of programs available to that population, we would do our communities a great service and reduce crime rates dramatically.1/11/2006 10:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.1/11/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|No, Ted I think you missed my point. I'm not arguing the importance of Kino Hospital.

I was just looking forward to your keen parsing of the scandal around the speaker. You seem to know more than most about Arizona politics, and if there is an undercurrent I don't know about, I find it first on your blog.