2/28/2006 05:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A few years back, the University of Arizona allowed the family of Kemper Marley to donate a load of money to have a building named for him. Ironically, it was around the same time that the University was threatening to close the School of Journalism. If you miss out on why that is funny, click here. Well, it was not without contraversey. The building was instead named "The Marley Family Building." I thought they should have allowed a goat to graze on the lawn and call it "agricultural land" just to make it the total Marley tribute. Now Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl want to start a "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence" at the University of Arizona College of Law. Of course, this time, the object isn't to whitewash Rehnquist's reputation as was the case with Marley. The media has been doing that for the last thirty years. The U of A Law school has recently been talking about expanding Hispanic enrollment. I can think of few symbols worse than naming something after Rehnquist for that. The man cut his teeth in the Republican party working on voter supression projects in the 1960's. What next? A wing at the medical school named for Tomás Tancredo? Alan Dershowitz had a recent article on the Rehnquist's reputation as a law student and young lawyer. There are also stories of Rehnquist's activities from young poll watchers at the time, like Sen. Manuel "Lito" Peña and Rep. Art Hamilton. Setting aside his abyssmal civil rights record on the Supreme Court (difficult, I admit), why the heck would we want to name something after a guy who made his early career this way? NB - Irony watch: McCain has recently taken on an anti-pork campaign. I take it he can justify that the future of the republic hinges on this thing getting funded? Art Hamilton told me a story similar to the one that Peña told in the linked article. If I may paraphrase his story:
AH: I told him that there were only two ways to leave, and only one involved his own power. I regret that. TP: Yeah, you probably shouldn't have threatened him like that. AH: No, I regret it because I wouldn't have let him walk out if I'd known what he'd be like on the Supreme Court.
|W|P|114117726301151284|W|P|Just to Make It Complete, Let's Build It On a Deed Restricted Lot|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/28/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski - excellent post. I know Lito Pena's account is true because an attorney in Phoenix at the time was one of Bill's partners in Operation Eagle Eye and he related the same facts to me in person.

You mentioned Rehnquist's "abysmal civil rights record” but you did not mention his finest moment. In 1973 he stood up for the most vulnerable among us and with one other person dissented in Roe v. Wade. This was the case that denied the unborn the most basic civil right, the right to live.

I don’t know if he decided as he did because of his personal views or because he thought a case should depend on more than the penumbra (shadow) of the constitution. The fact stands that because of Roe about 1 million unborn babies a year are killed in the womb.

I do not know Pena’s stand on abortion but I do know that the Democratic Party has been the great champion of abortion on demand. Challenging voters at the poles was not Bill’s finest moment but standing aside year after year as the unborn are slaughtered is not the Democrats finest moment either.

I have said it before. There have only been 2 SCOTUS appointments be a Democrat since 1973. If Democrats don’t like Rehnquist or people like him they should win the Presidency more often.2/28/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|One of the problems with pork is that one legislator's pork is another legislator's vital necessity for his district. And as long as the public knows/thinks that there are federal dollars to be gotten for local projects [pork], legislators will be expected to bring home as much bacon as possible.

I wonder how McCain is going to rationalize this?2/28/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I met William Rehnquist. I didn't agree with his politics, but I did find him to be a gentleman. The thing that impressed me so much about him when I met him was that he came back to Arizona to teach each year at the U. of A. law school. They didn't make him rich. He often gave up his protection by the U.S. Marshall's Service when running around town so that he could be the closest thing to an Arizonan that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could be.

On the night I met him, it was at a colleagues house. He came to dinner with a total of five of us, private, no protection. My colleague is pretty damned liberal too...but befriended Justice Rehnquist. Afterwards, Justice Rehnquist entered my colleague's living room and in came my colleague's students...about 20 of them. Justice Rehnquist then, quietly and politely, answered their questions for a good hour until tired.

Later, when leaving, my colleague asked if I could drive him home. My wife and I were in an old beat up Civic. He had a bad back...he politely got in the car and let us drive him...he did not complain, made no remarks about what kind of situation he was now in with people he really did not know.

I could make the jokes that I held the balance of the Supreme Court in my hands that night (and I have made them). Until that night, I let my anger of his decisions get in my way of thinking that he was human and could be quite kind if you knew him.

I did not agree with him on many things, and think many of his decisions did Americans a disservice...but he was indeed a gentleman, a great Arizonan, and for what he did at Arizona each year, a Center in his name, and $2 Million, is not too much.

Best,

Roger3/01/2006 03:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know Kral, I am reading about how some organizations dehumanize their opponents to better be able to fight against them.

We should never do that with our political opponents and too many try to. We should remember that our political opponents are human and can be polite, kind and even charming. Being able to disagree with them should not make us unwilling to at least talk to them. When you do not, you have the situation you have in Washington right now.3/01/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|...or on this blog.3/04/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales and Elizabeth-Excellent posts. Actually, we have that situation in Arizona too. The attacks that the Republican leadership are making on Napolitano are caustic/personal.

Gretchen3/04/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales--The federal government has been running $300-$400 million annual deficits the lasta several years, has an $8 trillion debt [$2.2 trillion owed to foreign countries], and it about to have to raise the debt ceiling. Given these realities, I can't see the justification in spending $2 million for this.

Why can't this money be raised privately? Surely they could get $2 million from the well-moneyed for this.

Gretchen3/04/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|It ain't just $2 Million...it's $2 Million a year for five years.

Heck, think of all of the private school vouchers we could fund. :)3/04/2006 11:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|$10 million! AHRG!--Given how well the upper class has done under the Bush tax cuts/economy--Why not let them put up the whole $10 million and pay for the yearly O&M?3/05/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Dear Gretchen and Ted:

You make good points about the idea of raising the funds independently...and I bet that they could. But remember, that is their argument about just about everything dealing with education and social programs and the like. Privatize education, research, prisons, etc etc. while spending tax dollars everywhere on defense and security.

What changed my mind about pork over the years (and one of the things that brought me from Republican to libertarian to now independent is that people freak out about $2 million (or $10) going to education, or a center, or research, but seem to say little to nothing about the Billions going to Iraq and the defense industry.

So, no, I am not minding it. It is a good issue to attack the Republicans on for now I guess, but I would rather attack them for giving tax-payer dollars to every industry in America, but those of us in education.

I'm sure I contradicting myself...maybe I just want "my pork" for once.3/05/2006 10:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales--Go to the Concord Coalition website--non-partisan organization that's been around for over a decade--main concern is the deficit and debt. Huge reality check re the bad state of our federal finances.

Normally I think of pork as something that benefits one location/company/industry.

Re privatizing. I don't think the federal government should be paying for a Rehnquist Center. I think of "privatizing" as being where the government still pays for the item, but instead of having government employees do the work, they have private contractors do it. Areas in which this should NOT be done are prisons, or regulatory compliance--also, I'm sure that you've heard the incredible waste in Iraq with the contracting.

Gretchen2/28/2006 06:26:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've been involved in this silliness long enough that I should be long past the point where I can expect constistency. For example, I worked for Sam Coppersmith's Senate race in 1994. Coppersmith was assailed by Dick Mahoney for being some sort of conservative sell-out. Mahoney even ran one ad where Coppersmith's mustache went back and forth onto Jon Kyl's face with the tag line "Coppersmith and Kyl, can you tell the difference?" I remember Coppersmith being taken apart even by activists for not supporting Bill Clinton when he needed him. (Of course, given what has happened in the meantime, being criticized by Mahoney for not being liberal enough would be like being criticized by Kevin Federline for being not talented enough) I told Darcy Renfro, who directed the southern Arizona campaign, "Just wait, after the primary, Sam will be painted as some sort of Marxist." Well, it took an extra two weeks because of a recount, but as soon as Coppersmith was confirmed as the nominee, Kyl was running ads claiming that Coppersmith was some sort of unreconstructed lefty who was too close to Bill Clinton. Well, I suppose it is too much to expect consistency from different opponents. It is suprising however, when a candidate gets attacked from the right and left by the same set of opponents. For example, when Gabrielle Giffords announced her campaign would be co-chaired by Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha, I heard no end of complaints from supporters of other candidates. The complaints went something like this:
That Dorothy Finley is a Republican. And Basha? He's anti-Union and a party switcher! See, Giffords is a closet Republican!
So, what claim have I been hearing over the last few days, from the some of the same people, by the way?
Giffords kicked Finley and Basha off of her committee because the Unions made her! See, this just proves that she'll sell out to special interests.
First off, near as I can tell, Finley is still a co-chair of Giffords's campaign. Basha's name is no longer there. From what I know about Basha and Giffords, I have a feeling that he removed his own name. Basha is about to take a whole lot of grief from the UFCW (who has not yet endorsed); it is probably best that his name is off. He is also heading up an education initiative, and I'm pretty sure that he'll take his name off of that as well. Aside from that though, the knock against her before was that she was supported by people who were not liked by some liberal interest groups, now she is being taken to task for allegedly cowtowing to those same interest groups? Come on! Pick a criticism and stick with it. Besides, I thought we wanted our candidates to take direction from labor. Also, the evidence doesn't bear out what folks are claiming. Despite the rhetoric of solidarity, the labor movement is not a monolith. Some labor organizations have supported Giffords, but as I said, UFCW has not endorsed. Although they recently signed a solidarity agreement with the State AFL-CIO, they still have an independent streak. I find it unlikely that other unions would be taking direction from one that other AFL-CIO members were raking over the coals a few months ago for a bitter public split with the national organization. And, one union, UTU, has endorsed Patty Weiss. I have spoken to some Steelworkers who are at the very least unenthusiastic about Giffords's campaign, it is unlikely that they would take direction from a "rebel" union as well. Given Giffords's recent support of SEIU, AFSCME can't be too happy with her either. But, why be consistent? Take her apart for getting support from one of those dangerous special interests who wouldn't have been so dangerous if they were supporting your candidate. NB - Speaking of labor, any word yet on whether Latas or Weiss support the right of county workers to organize? Giffords does. I suppose that just makes her a sell out to liberal interests. Unless it makes her part of some DLC vanguard. I am so confused!|W|P|114113654656237127|W|P|She's Too Conservative, No Wait, She's Too Liberal...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/28/2006 08:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Well said Ted! As I mentioned on the Data Port, this smacks of a desperation. It makes me wonder seriously about whether the other campaigns are catching on at all. It also takes me back to what I said about primaries...over and over and over again. Primary voters are the most active, ideological, and inside the party. Gabby seems to be doing a remarkable job of winning these voters over first. The others are left clamoring for this support and attacking her when they don't get it.

Last, let me say this...to those that are undecided (or those who I am courting like CC Burro..grin)...I am seeing a breadth of support for Giffords right now that I have not seen in quite some time. At a recent fundraiser I saw people to the left, people to the middle, activists, and people who have not been so involved. Come aboard and support her! We would love to have you.2/28/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|OK, but she's still a Scrippsee.2/28/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Oh Tedski stop bowing down to the powers that be & spinning for them (they wont pay you back) and have a backbone for once.2/28/2006 10:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I'd take the advice if you had the backbone to put your name down.2/28/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Geotuttle|W|P|So tedski is wondering if Latas is a union supporter? Well, it's been said at the forums that Jeff grew up in a union household. Missed out on Christmases because his dad was on strike. Jeff has publicly ome out and said he is a union supporter. So there it is.

As a former Steelworker, I can say I would find that labor will have a friend in Congress with Jeff.

By the way, "Gabby" did indeed throw her chairs under the bus for the union endorsement. Basha is reportedly PISSED about this.

Can someone start singing: "Take the money and run."2/28/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--To correct an inaccuracy--They are not alleging that she is too liberal; they are alleging that she is opportunistic, a very different animal.

Why not go to the source? Why don't you simply ask Gabby point-blank about this rumor? If this rumor is fabrication, this would be the best way to squelch it. If this rumor is true, then it is fair for the primary voters to know this.

FYI--Latas definitely supports the right of county workers [and all workers] to unionize.2/28/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|That's why Liberals need to take back the word Liberal. Don't run from it, because as long as they think they can get votes out of it, Republicans will always call every Democrat Liberal (I mean, they used it to take out Charlie Stenholm two years ago, so I guess to them there is no such thing as a Democrat who isn't a Liberal).

So, yeah, I'm a Liberal.2/28/2006 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Gabby is following the DLC playbook. She speaks like Hillary, and she thinks raising money is more important than meeting voters.

She has Joementum and she is taking the same professional advice that brought Mary Judge Ryan and George Cunningham low votes and made them unelectable.

She seeks opportunities and deserves credit for being an opportunist.

She would certainly disavow the Prezelskis if she thought it would give her traction. Millionaire Democrats and Republican lobbyists have given her the money to win, but they can't get her the votes as easily.

Unelectable is the WORD that follows the Gabby money trail.

Eddie Basha has friends that I WOULD never cross. Life is too short.

Dorothy Finley is a good Republican and Gabby's mentor, and Gabby is a quick learner. She is both transactional and unelectable.2/28/2006 01:58:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well Ted, Latas is listening. Here is a link to his diary on the Dailykos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/28/144649/427, I think he makes his point loud and clear he's pretty union blue.2/28/2006 02:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wow, good post on the kos.2/28/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|FYI...UA Young Democrats will host Gabby tomorrow (Wed) at 7:30ish in the Union Kiva room.
And before you all get your undies in a twist, all candidates will be invited to campus as UAYD does not endorse during a contested Primary.2/28/2006 02:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|...Republicans will always call every Democrat Liberal... And every moderate, and every libertarian, and every Green, and every Independent...2/28/2006 04:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Who cares!|W|P|And this is why the Democratic party and its members blow. Cant agree on anything! This is why Repubs win people!2/28/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|you hit the nail on the head "who cares!"

They're too busy eating their own, trying to figure who's a real liberal and who has forgotten where they came from ... or something like that.

Shoot. Might as well just save money and hand the election over now.2/28/2006 06:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|First, these silly little disagreements are just that...silly...and they will not keep anyone here from rallying around the candidate that is chosen...there are good Democrat candidates who will be a big big plus over what you all are offering. I may not be speaking for everyone, but I cannot imagine the few venomous comments coming out in this discussion keeping support from Giffords when she takes this thing...or Latas and Weiss if they do.

Second, I can't wait to see your own blood spillage in CD8 my Republican friends. Huffman/Hellon...the battle royale for the moderate voice...and Graf waiting to call them both liberals.

Roger2/28/2006 07:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wasn’t it Howard Dean that said, “When you run a Republican "Lite" against a Republican the real Republican wins every time.” We certainly know this to be true. In recent years Democratic candidates who have been afraid to stand up for traditional Democratic values always lose.

Gifford’s is not electable because her "boldest" idea seams to be. Compromise, go to the middle and give it up to them so you can get a little crumb. I don't think so, not in the most remote sense do I believe Gifford's can win thisrace.This is not personal at all—I have met Ms.Giffords and she seems to be very nice. But nice doesn’t win elections, bold ideas do. Ms.Giffords is too weak to stand up to the ugly Repug machine that will bulldoze everything in its path. if she wins this primary we lose the seat.

This DLC crowd have been using this same strategy for years. Let's see, have Democrats been winning elections lately? Has going to the middle and not standing for anything been working? Yet, they keep doing it every election cycle?

The DLC people here in Arizonahave been been irrelevent for a while now--they just haven’t realized it yet. The reality is that they are still players because they have ties to big money and can raise money.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that Gabby Giffords' candidacy will result in anything other than another loss. If you do-- Look up the definition of what constitutes Mental Illness.
Now I am not saying this to be unkind or to call people names, however, it happens to be true.

As Gabby gains support in this primary I see the opportunity to take his seat from the Republicans slipping away. I’m hoping like hell that this won’t happen. But I will fight them with all of my heart. As far as I’m concerned the Republicans will get this seat only if they stomp over my dead body to do so. That’s how serious I am about winning this race for the Democrats. I’m hoping that all good Democats are willing to fight for this seat with everything they have as well.

To Tedski, whomever you happen to be. Please know that-- while doing the bidding of the leftover DLC here in Arizona you too may find yourself being labled irrelevent. I would hate to see that happen… you sound like you are passionate about your Democratic poltics and we certainly need more people in the party that have that same energy. Please get off this Gifford’s kick and try to help your readers evaluate this race fairly so the Democrat who can win the General Election is the Democrat that wins the primary—if you are not willing to use your critical thinking skills and help the community do the same in evaluating this race realistically-- I’m afraid my dear you will become part of the problem.

BTW: Sam Coppersmith absolutely Arizona Democrats out. I was in the midst of the 1994 disaster and the party has never recovered. A freshman Congressman from a conservative district has no business running or the US Senate. The Arizona Democratic party was in shambles. Coppersmith let us down big time—the hundreds of volunteers who helped get him elected to Congress were especially let down—I was one of those many hundreds.

I remain anonymous because of the nature of my job..2/28/2006 08:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger – Your Republican friend here. I can’t wait either for the Huffman/Hellon battle so Randy can win. Bravo!

John2/28/2006 08:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|First, hey to Phx Kid (John)...I think you may get your wish! Then I will get mine. Which leads me to the Anon above you...

My wish and hope is that Giffords wins the primary and unlike you, I think she can deliver the election. I am not sure who you are supporting but I am guessing, only guessing, that it is Latas or Weiss. I think you are absolutely wrong about Giffords and the DLC....I think you are also wrong about the depth of her support. I see the worries that you have thrown out. That she may be too moderate or wishy washy as a candidate and that it will give the voters no choice but to vote Republican. I think you will be quite suprised to see her conviction as this campaign develops. I also think you will be quite suprised at how many liberals...died in the wool liberals...are in support of her and her candidacy. They are not deluded, I assure you. It may be that Gabby is having to react so much because some, like you, keep attacking her....and I will end by saying this. You are doing her the best of services. No candidate is perfect...no public servant is perfect. What you are doing is pointing out the simple little flaws that she will be able to work on and deflect as the campaign goes along. If anything you say is true, and I am doubting a lot of it (because I think you are trying to tear her down in order to elect whoever you are working for...it smacks of desperation)...if any of it is true, you are only going to sharpen her now, for what will come this fall.

Next, back to my Republican friend Phx Kid...if you get your wish with Graf, I can assure you that Anon will be wrong about Giffords ability to win.2/28/2006 08:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|One more thing...I'd like to remind the readers here that this district leans Republican...and has a lot of independents...maybe majority. This is not a liberal district. While Giffords is liberal on many many issues, she is not an abashed ideologue. She is reasonable. To "anon" this might smack of selling out or not being liberal enough, but I would just have any of you look at the list of her supporters on www.giffordsforcongress.com. Stanley Feldman, Andy Silverman, a host of Democratic party elected officials. If anyone here wants to call Former Justice Feldman or Professor Silverman a conservative Democratic...well...should I say more?2/28/2006 09:05:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Is Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha a part of her committee still?

I'm confused that it will look like she deserted them for some union endorsements when they might still be working the money from a back room.

She needs to show some DLC spine and let her supporters know the real story about Ms. Finley and Mr. Basha.

Its really about having an image that plays well with the primary voters and the contributors might have to keep a low profile and keep her negatives from blooming like dandelions.

She still needs to define her image as something other than a creature of privilege and rolling up her sleeves and getting the union endorsements will let her look like Rosie the Riveter, better than the militaristic flight suit photo that reminds me of: Mission Accomplished!2/28/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|TO WHO CARES!/ANONYMOUS--Much irony in that you are saying the Democrats can't agree on anything when the Republican party has been imploding over their total fiscal irresponsibility of the past several years, corruption, Medicare part D, immigration, etc. and eating, no, spitting out its moderates.

TO ANONYMOUS AFTER ELI--That is the most no-substance, no-logic rant that I've seen on this blog. Do you know the meaning of the word "alleged"? What's your problem? Did Giffords steal your cookies in a previous life?

TO ANONYMOUS AFTER KRALMAJALES--DLC irrelevant in Arizona? You think Napolitano [DLC associated "New" Democrat] is irrelevant?2/28/2006 09:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It is alleged that many of Gabby's supporters have been known to maximize shareholders' profits at the expense of the Democratic Party and common sense.

More DLC boilerplate from the New Democrats does not seem to play well where people don't wear ties.

If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. I wonder where the genuine candidate is?

We read lots of predictions here but little strategy to get someone elected who can win the general election.

If the Finleys and Bashas were dropped for expediency, when will the DLC disavowal begin?2/28/2006 09:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|So, OK, you SAY that Giffords cannot win the general election... (which I completely disagree with because the amount of support she has secured will translate into real votes...and I don't think that any of three candidates can lose to what the Repubs have to offer)...

So who are you supporting that can win the general election? and Why? You've attacked over and over who I am supporting. I now will listen to you and I think many here are wondering...who are you supporting, why? and why can they win in the fall?2/28/2006 09:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Jeff Latas, Alex Rodriguez and Patty Weiss are definitely not cut from the Status Quo.

They are less likely to disavow their roots to win some ephemeral endorsements.

This election is about getting votes, not getting money and endorsements.

Both Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas support unions and minimum wage increases for working people.

Alex Rodriguez is very capable and likeable, and his life on the border is compelling.

Managing El Campo does not seem to have the same narrative that the other candidates bring to the election.

The working class is different from the rich, they have less money.2/28/2006 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|It appears that Giffords supports unions as well. She has had their support in the past and appears to be getting their support again. As to the minimum wage, one of the primary movers, if not creators of the current minimum wage initiative is supporting Gabrielle Giffords...

As to endorsement and money not getting votes...I would just say that you are right...its not the only thing, but you underestimate the number of votes Giffords is winning and has won from people she has aided in our state legislature...as a public servant. Only Rodriguez, of those you have named, has any real experience in public office...

If experience and wealth is an evilish status quo then the revolution has a long way to go to influence me.2/28/2006 10:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger is correct on this one. This race is wide open. Whom ever the Republicans nominate will need to do some serious healing of his party. This will give the Democratic nominee an opportunity that will have to be skillfully used. Either side could loose be making a gaffe. The race will probably come down to who can best unify his/her party.2/28/2006 11:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Gabby has created either the impression or the rumor that Ms. Finley and Mr. Basha have been asked to move aside or to the back room.

This has not been answered except in whispers.

DLC and wealth aside, Basha and Finley are not known to be supporters of workers and universal health care.

If Gabby is distancing herself from her early adopters, will she be likely to win votes or lose them?

This is the question that CD8 needs answered.2/28/2006 11:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Earlier today only Jessica Finley was on the list of endorsements at Gabby's site.

Tonight,Dorothy Finley has reappeared as an endorsement.

So everything is okay again on the endorsement list. Only Eddie Basha has yet to reappear.3/01/2006 12:48:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Hates Flip Floppers|W|P|Eddie Basha is Back!! Wow......can someone say FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP

DLC and wealth aside, Basha and Finley are not known to be supporters of workers and universal health care.

Does anyone know if El Campo workers had adequate healthcare and benefits when it was under Gifford's ownership? Were they unionized? If not, why not?3/01/2006 06:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Gone, back, gone, back...people have disputes. It appears that this one has been ironed out and managed. Many may find this flip/floppy and not endearing. Fine. But the fact is, the other candidates do not have the endorsements nor the support of these two individuals.

I am going to get heat for what I am about to say, but this sounds like an effective campaign to me.3/01/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD 8 Democratic Voter|W|P|Tedski didn't like his little candidate of choice being called out anonymously. Boo Hoo

Wow, way to quiet the critics Tedski. They must be paying you tons of money to run this blog and make sure it stays Pro-Giffords and all the critics are silenced.3/01/2006 09:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hey I don't mind having the "anons" around at all. In fact, some of the Gabby bashing anons got me to write another check to my favorite candidate. I still continue to tell my friends about her and I am finding that, much to my surprise, they are already on board. In addition, I think it tells the rest of the readers how very desperate the supporters of the other candidates are to get supporters in this race.

So, I wouldn't have squelched you...3/01/2006 10:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|man I wish Ted was doing this blog fulltime...he could do stuff on my district more....oh wait he already is! Does this mean I owe you money Ted?2/27/2006 08:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Daily Kos and Wactivist are reporting some internal DCCC numbers that look very bad for J. D. Hayworth. I know, it will drive all of us into a funk. Here are some numbers:
Larry King 37% Rep. J. D. Hayworth 44% Sen. Harry Mitchell 43% Hayworth 42% Sen. Chuck Blanchard 41% Hayworth 40%
What the heck is that all about? King is an attorney and political activist that ran against Hayworth once before. I love the guy, but there has been some grousing from party higher-ups about his candidacy. Ironically, the fact that King's numbers show Hayworth to be so vulnerable will be what leads to the party recruiting another candidate. At the Democratic State Convention on Saturday, I heard some buzz about recruiting Mitchell to run. Mitchell is incredibly popular in Tempe, having the sort of connection with citizens that most politicians would envy. Mitchell is currently the chair of the State Democratic Party. This might create some temporary chaos while the deck chairs get reshuffled, but I think the party could handle that if it meant driving Hayworth into early retirement. Chuck Blanchard? He last ran for office in 1994, when he lost a race for Congress against Matt Salmon. Blanchard had also talked about running for Attorney General in 1994 and 2002. Given how long it has been since he has been in the public eye, it is interesting to see that even he beats Hayworth. I knew Blanchard even before he was first elected to office; he's a hell of a guy. He also would make a fantastic congressman, he had been clerk to Sandra Day O'Connor, counsel to the US Army, the state's first director of Homeland Security. The guy is incredibly intelligent, but even better, he's the sort of intelligent that is curious and likes to ask questions. Hayworth has been using immigration the way some ogre in a bad fantasy movie uses a club. Obviously, it doesn't get a politician as far as the conventional wisdom says it does. Hayworth has always been a blowhard, but he was a blowhard that painted himself as good for his constituency. That Hayworth hasn't been in political trouble for a long time. This new Mojado-hater mouthbreather persona doesn't seem to work for him. Don "Still No Supporters" Goldwater and Randy Graf ought to listen. Then again, I hope they don't. NB - I suppose it is possible that Chuck Blanchard has been confused with more recent candidate and giant killer Jay Blanchard. Then again, it is probably more possible that people are confusing Larry King with, uh, Larry King.|W|P|114110004834334619|W|P|Hayworth in Trouble? Gee, That's Too Bad.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/27/2006 09:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I love Mitchell, but like Jim Pederson said Saturday, running for Senate is one way to get out of being party chair. And yeah, I'd love to see Hayworth go. He's never been the kind of unbeatable Republican stalwart that people in Washington seem to think he is.2/27/2006 11:00:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I heard from several people about the poll. Apparently after hearing candidate descriptions and position statements, King was actually UP 44-38. Granted, it was a partisan poll so the descriptions were probably skewed, but...2/28/2006 12:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This would the year to get rid of JD.

I just wish I had the money to run. :(2/28/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What is up with that indeed!

The DCCC runs Chuck Blanchard's name against Hayworth but not last year's candidate who won a whole 34% of the vote????

Does anyone know why the DCCC is ignoring Elizabeth Rogers?2/28/2006 10:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, as someone who loves Harry Mitchell and would support him in anything he did. This one does get personal.

I think before all the political prognosticators should take a step back and first ask Marianne Mitchell if she is willing to give up her husband for Washington D.C before moving forward with anything else.

Then ask Harry because I'm pretty sure he would rather be at home in Tempe playing with the grandkids than playing with the 2 year olds in Washington.

Then the rather personal fact that I'd rather have our senior senator, senior mayor and senior city counselor here at home taking care of things here and now and now leading the Arizona Democratic Party than playing with those idjits in D.C.

And and mean that. You have to be crazy to run for Congress and put up with those people. We've seen one to many Arizonans go to Washington and come home disillusioned and distraught about what goes on there. From both parties and all ideologies.2/28/2006 12:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Anonymous, I have a blog: http://e-rog.blogspot.com

go there and taunt me.

I also got 38% of the vote thank you very much.2/28/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|ms. rogers

huh? how is asking why your name was not polled instead of a guy who hasn't been in elected office in over a decade "taunting" you?

it's a legitimate question that was asked of anyone who knows the answer.

a little sensitive, no?2/28/2006 08:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|1. Larry King is “the” candidate in CD-5 and that’s the end of it. Larry has been working his tail off for two years helping other candidates and putting together his grassroots infrastructure. Now with these numbers out he can raise the money to actually beat Hayworth.
Larry King is one of the most talented Congressional candidates in the county. Some very powerful National organizations have recognized his talent and tried to get him to move to any number of districts where they had a shot at a seat, lots of candidates willing to run but with no real talent.
Anyone who moves in now or anyone who is seen to be activally recruiting other candidates to run in CD-5 will have to answer to the grassroots community in our district. This community by the way is not made of the fringe. We are in fact, all PC’s, disrtict chairs, state committee members,county party officers and we are organized. Don’t even try it! Larry King is our candidate-and we will thwart any attempt to challange him. Larry was the only one with the guts to run when it looked like it was impossible to win this seat. Anyone who jumps in now is just an opportunist with no vision—the exact type that will lose a race if it’s a tough one.
So send Larry some money and let’s all stop speculating.2/28/2006 08:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I would be very careful about these poll numbers given the 44% Rep/28% Dem makeup of the district. But hey, knock yourselves out.2/28/2006 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...Phx Kid...advantages advantages...the problem is that Hayworth appears pretty corrupt. Is that something you can support...really support? I don't expect you to give up your values and principles to vote Democrat (not being snide...I really don't expect that), but I also wouldn't expect you to give them up to support someone like Hayworth either.

My conclusion, I think that smart people like you...and other Republicans might skip voting FOR this guy.2/28/2006 10:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|OK so JD has some issues to work on. I do not live in his district; if I did I would fall into a coma during one of his speeches and miss voting for him.

I did attend a Republican luncheon where he spoke for an hour and said nothing of substance. Everyone just loved it. I left stunned. He yet may work his magic once more. Ever heard the term “sophistry.”

Either way the numbers will still be hard to overcome.

Has JD been there long enough to get the full House pension? I do not know why anyone stays past that point. They have given themselves a real sweet deal.2/27/2006 05:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Here I thought that after her crushing, soul destroying, id hammering 61-39 defeat at the hands of Karin Uhlich, I would never have to write about Kathleen Dunbar again. Well, I wrote a few gloaty posts, but I thought she was done, finished, kaput, terminado. No such luck. Some of you may remember that during the last few weeks of Dunbar's political career, she chose to sue a number of people for, uh, criticizing her. Yes, it is the sort of tactic you would expect from one of those freak wingnut politicians in Eastern Europe. The lawsuit was filed against Uhlich, Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom, Amphitheater School District Official Todd Jaeger and a number of Democratic activists. The lawsuit was never served, which led to some head scratching and wondering if the whole thing was just a poorly executed political tactic. A couple of wags, myself included, thought that Eckerstrom or someone else should have filed a response to the suit to force some action. For the most part, the whole thing just sort of faded away, and we don't even make jokes about it anymore. Well, the jokes can begin again! Dunbar's attorney has served the lawsuit. There is an additional defendant, the Amphitheater School District. And, there is a new charge: False Light Invasion of Privacy. This is the sort of thing a private citizen can sue for, but a public official cannot. There is case law on this, Godbehere v Phoenix Newspapers, which clearly states that a public official cannot sue on those grounds. Even without the new and improved extra frivolous charge, the suit is ridiculous. (as is the grammar and punctuation in the filings) Jaeger made his initial comments in May of 2004, so there is some question about whether Dunbar can sue over it now. Also, the comments were made during a public city council hearing, where there are legal protections for speakers. The suit against the party and its activists is even more tenuous, since the party was quoting a newspaper article that in turn quoted Jaeger's protected speech. Dunbar's attorney, Stephen Gonzalez (See below), should know a bit better than this. I mean, I'm still an undergrad trying to get a BS in Physics, and this guy went to law school. (I don't know where, I can't find him on the State Bar Association site) Why is it that I seem to have done more research on this one than he has? I've asked around, and he is not a litigator, but a real estate attorney. Well, no need to worry. We have laws on this sort of thing in Arizona. If a suit is wholly without merit, guess who has to foot the legal bills? CORRECTION - I misspelled Gonzalez's name in the original post. I found his entry at the bar association, and he went to the U of A law school. NB - The Arizona Democratic Party still has their site up detailing Dunbar's allegations and the facts behind them. Attorney Bill Risner is handling the Democratic party's case against Dunbar. This silliness detracts from his more important and interesting job defending Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz against ridiculous charges. Check out the details at nomoredeaths.org.|W|P|114108724885298368|W|P|Kathleen Dunbar: The Gift That Keeps On Giving|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/28/2006 12:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well if she wants to spend her money on this...2/28/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The irony to me is that the very Republican idea of punishing frivolous lawsuits is going to be the thing to bite her in the *tushy*.2/28/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|Hey Ted, re:Daniel and Shanti, do you want a yard sign?2/28/2006 08:58:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|He's there, Tedski. You didn't find him on the bar's web site because you misspelled his name.
It's Gonzalez with a Z

http://www.myazbar.org/Members/Memberfinder/Detail.cfm?ID=517202/28/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Well, Eric, I have a yard sign. Do you want a Howe Gelb CD?2/28/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|I figured that you had one Tom. I know for a fact that Ted still has his Trasoff sign in his window.

Howe Gelb? Is he the guy in that Danish band?3/01/2006 05:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|seriously though, yeah I need to buy one of those CDs.3/04/2006 04:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I thought Dunbar left town [for good]several months ago????

Gretchen2/26/2006 08:58:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Just to show that once in a while, even I can be wrong and I recognize that, I made an error, a faux pas, in my post about the State Treasurer's race. I said that Laura Knaperek was a possible candidate for Senate in District 17. I heard from my legion of fans. They tell me that Knaperek isn't interested in the seat. Although she's a proven vote getter in the district, the Republican candidate would be the Jeff Gannon look-alike Mark Thompson. Thompson, if you remember, came in fourth for re-election in 2004. So, why the heck would Knaperek dodge this race and instead look at running state wide? It turns out that even though the East Valley is considered staunchly Republican, there are trends that are looking bad for the Republicans in some areas. Kanperek's District 17, for example, voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. They obviously still support Republicans, recent elections in Tempe bear that out. However, it is becoming clear that someone like Knaperek, who has played good soldier for the far right for a while, is not the sort of Republican that can be supported there. She is going for Treasurer because she sees which way the wind is blowing and doesn't think she can get elected to the State Senate. This also means the Republicans will have to look elsewhere to pick up a Senate seat for their "veto-proof majority" dream.|W|P|114097071298798176|W|P|Tempe Abnormal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/26/2006 12:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|A recent editorial in The Arizona Republic confirms that Knaperek has expressed interest in running for State Treasurer.2/26/2006 12:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|It is also becoming pretty stunning to me at the number of "far far right" folks that are running on the Republican side for statewide offices. Gov, treasurer, U.S. Senate, etc. The primaries could weed them out, but on the other hand, we could see a pretty unreasonable group of Repubs on one side versus a moderate and mainstream looking set of Democrats.

Roger2/26/2006 01:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, finally people have started to wake up to this fact. Tempe is split 1\3 Democrat, 1\3 Republican and 1\3 Independent\Other.

I love it when the Republic and the other news agencies pretend that the district and the city are somehow Republican leaning because the GOP 1\3rd outweights the Democrat 1\3rd by like 900 votes.

Sorry, John Kerry carried District 17, which includes most of Tempe and South Scottsdale by 8,000 votes (margin) in a district that has a total registration of 72,000.

Need i say more?2/26/2006 01:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous MisterTinAZ|W|P|And don't forget -- 17 voted against prop 200 as well.2/26/2006 02:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I have a post, and it died.

Anyway, Laura is also female and women do well in the district.2/26/2006 02:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Then is sounds like that there should be no problem in having a good Democrat run and take this seat? It is at least, not unthinkable as some suggest about turning our legislature.

Thanks to Tom-AZ for the informative post. I wonder how many other seats in Maricopa and other part of the state are like the district that Tom helps us with?2/27/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|K-Nap is not running for State Treasurer. She's been promised a high-paying job by Dino when he wins the spot.2/27/2006 11:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Laura Knaprek will be announcing soon for State Treasurer. Stay tuned as all hell will be breaking loose!2/27/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:

Sorry to start a rumor on your blog, but at the meeting on Saturday, they announced all the candidates who were in attendance and running for something, and they called your name. Are you running for something, or did they make a mistake and meant to call Tom?2/27/2006 04:24:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"Anyway, Laura is also female and women do well in the district."

Yes, we residents of district 17 will vote for anything with a vagina. Testes? Not for us, thankyouverymuch.

Perhaps elizabeth will tell us how to "grow a pair."

:-P2/27/2006 05:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Mister T in AZ|W|P|Anoymous who talked about vaginas -

It is actually very much conventional wisdom here in Tempe and 17 that a generic woman does better than a generic man at the polls.

Do you disagree? Perhaps you personally are the opposite and would rather vote for the generic man?2/28/2006 12:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|In Scottsdale (D8) all three members of the State Leg are women, two in Tempe, the mayor of Scottsdale is a woman and of course we also have a woman Gov. The second in a row.

Women not only in the East Valley but in Arizona as well as nationally are viewed as less corrupt then men.

sarcasm
I cannot imagine why.
/sarcasm2/28/2006 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Then what happened to you? Aren't you a woman?2/28/2006 10:09:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Then what happened to you? Aren't you a woman?

I wouldn't want to assume anything.3/01/2006 02:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Yes, anonymous. I've met Elizabeth and she is a woman. And a very classy one at that.3/01/2006 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Thank you Eli, you are so kind. :)2/24/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As I noted yesterday, Jim Nintzel mentioned this blog (as well as Espresso Pundit) as a source that was saying that State Treasurer David Petersen's political career was sputtering towards its cessation. In one of those instances of "Man, deadlines suck!", Petersen announced that he was not running 'round about the time that Nintzel's Tucson Weekly was hitting the streets, thereby ruining his predictive mojo. And, Nintzel's Skinny column carried another piece of "deadline irony":
But hey, at least Attorney General Terry Goddard hasn't sent in a team of investigators yet. Has he?
Well, right about the time that eager Tucsonans flipped by the Skinny on the way to Red Meat or those "Uncensored" ads that I wouldn't know anything about, sources disclosed that Attorney General Goddard was indeed investigating Petersen's office. Those weekly papers are so last century. I guess the Republicans shouldn't worry. They have a registration advantage, and they have a great candidate in Sen. Dean Martin who is exactly the sort of ethical person who can go in and clean up this mess. Hold on. As it turns out, Sen. Martin has some of his own problems. Ain't that a kick in the head? Martin owns a company called Digital Print Design, which his campaign paid $12,000 dollars to, and it paid his wife's firm $9,000 dollars. I realize that if you own a company that provides a service to your campaign, you must bill the campaign, it's the law. But suspicious bastards like me look at such large amounts essentially going to the candidate, and we have to complain that it smells a bit. Also, an additional $650 was paid to throw a birthday party with lobbyists. At least he wasn't, I dunno, using his marginally qualified, ethically impoverished, political crony staff to give fingerwagging speeches on ethics or something. NB - To be clear, I actually predicted that Petersen would resign. There is still plenty of time for that.|W|P|114083155170061886|W|P|Cut Off One Head, and Two Will Take Its Place|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/24/2006 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|A birthday party with lobbyists? I mean, I'm way too old for a birthday party, but if I had one, who would I invite? My friends? My family? My co-workers? Jack Abramoff?

Yeah. I was just talking with one of my twins tonight about the party they will have when they turn ten. Maybe I will insist that they can each invite four of their friends, and then I get to invite four lobbyists to come and sit on the couch and eat cake.2/25/2006 01:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well do not have a flag cake...because that would be a desecration. Unless of course you are George H. W. Bush.2/26/2006 12:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Check out my post re: Petersen at Desert Rat Democrat here.

I heard secondhand that Petersen once tried to institute mandatory prayer at the State Treasurer's office.2/26/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|So who is running for the Treasurer post on the Democrat side? How do we contribute?2/26/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|It's Richmond J. Vincent. He is running as a Clean Elections candidate. His website is:

http://www.richmondjvincent.com2/26/2006 03:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Thank you kindly!!!2/26/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|speaking of prayer sessions, Andrew Thomas is running one in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. Actually, I think he calls it a bible study or something similar.

Anyone else know of any other elected officials in AZ doing something like this?2/27/2006 11:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger labwiroro|W|P|You guys are all morons. Petersen will never resign; that is the biggest chip he has, politcally and legally. If you look closely at the allegations, they do not involve mismanagement of public monies, which would be an real charge. Terry Goddard is a joke of an attorney general. If these types of charges were made by an private attorney, he/she would be looking at numerous bar complaints for, among other things, malicious prosecution, etc.
By the way, the mandatory prayer thing is an obvious lie, and nothing more than an attempt to incite derision and contempt. Zelph, you are truly are an idiot with too much time on your hands.2/27/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Man, you guys don't know the half of it with Dean Martin. You failed to point out that most of the money he recieved in campaign contributions came from lobbyist with business before the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs. Most of his campaign funds find thier way into his own pocket. Think about that, money from lobbyist go through his campaign committee and into his pocket. this is about corruption, legal bribery, this Senator Dean Martin is a crook and now he wants to be state treasurer.2/27/2006 04:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|For those of you who think that Dave Peterson won't resign, please look at the following:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage1.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage2.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage3.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage4.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage5.jpg

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage6.jpg2/28/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I bet no one knew that Sen. Dean Martin had two fund raisers at a nudist colony with his wife. What some politicians will do for money.3/03/2006 04:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Petersen son and attorney, Paul D. "Labwiroro" Petersen says Petersen will NEVER resign. More here.3/03/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|I meant here2/24/2006 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Local developer Don Bourn, from an article in this morning's Arizona Daily Star:

"A lot of my development friends say 'your nuts,' " he said, although he stressed he is still committed to the project.

I have a lot of trouble getting my students to avoid confusing possessive pronouns with contractions, but of course they are working on their GEDs and don't have editors with journalism degrees.|W|P|114082523720519551|W|P|To Which Mr. Bourn Responded, "My Testicles Are None of Your Business."|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/24/2006 08:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Yay! Old joke time:

A guy walks into a shrink's office wearing nothing but cellophane wrap.

The shrink takes a look at him and says, "Clearly, I can see your nuts."2/26/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Ok...so no one bit on my other post about Mr. Bourn (and I am not picking on him...there are others...Pathways, etc.).

It is clear that downtown is becoming a haven for a government/business partnership where those who get "inside" of government get nice deals like free land, tax abatements, zoning exclusions, and other breaks in order to bring about economic development. I may be wrong...who really gets these opportunities?

Were these contracts bid out? What mechanisms of oversight do we have on these types of deals? How does one get at the table in order to be offered such deals? What mechanisms does the city have for who gets these government bestowed programs?

Charles Lindbloom, a great political economist, noted the "Priviledge Position of Business in Government". It appears business likes government quite a bit afterall.2/28/2006 04:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Stones and glass houses . . . Your "blurb-o-matic" has the following quote: ''People adore this blog for it's snarky insightful commentary and reporting.'' - Elizabeth Rogers, Former Democratic Nominee for US House, Discourse on Honesty Unicorns

Its, it's, your, you're -- grammer and spelling are important, but politics is ever so much more fun.2/28/2006 08:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|It's a quote...I'll blame Elizabeth.2/22/2006 05:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There are three items in today's Skinny, and all three include either me or my brother. Oh, and my Mom is in one. What Jim, you don't like my Dad or something? Soon, all will be Prezelski. Klaatu barada nikto.|W|P|114065460980526781|W|P|It's a Prezelski Trifecta|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/22/2006 10:56:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Banjo Folk|W|P|Downing is off the deepend!

Banjo!2/22/2006 11:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No kidding, that was incredibly rude of Ted Downing.2/23/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Eh...I agree with Tom, Huffman, and most others on bringing the money back to Tucson. I mean, the so called Rio Neuvo Tax district is really us keeping the money, at least downtown, from the sales taxes that generally go up to Maricopa.

However, Ted's point is one that deserves just some merit, although I think he went too far. I can see that he didn't like that the fix seemed to be in on the extention and he appeared to be more worried about what will happend to that money and if it will lead to the downtown that Tucsonans have been wishing to build.

City officials and our city manager have made it clear that this public money will be a "government-business" partnership. I am not a complete libertarian or anything so that is not necessarily bad, but for me it raises questions about oversight. Who will get the incentives to be downtwon? What kind of developments? Artist districts? The Gap? Sole proprietors? Developers of high rise apartment complexes? high rise financial buildings? What downtown will look like has a lot to do with who has the power to spend that money...and that will be our city manager who must craft deals and support for our mayor and council to consider.

I wonder if Downing was really questioning the responsibility of those who are developing Rio Nuevo now what the plans are? Going after the money source, though, was just bad politics.2/23/2006 12:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|speaking of local weeklies, the phoenix new times ran a piece on the dems today in which Tucson's very own Dennis DeConcini is quoted as saying that he guesses Janet supported him for senator back in the day because John Frank told her to.

Has he been talking to Grijalva? And what is it with you people in Baja Arizona? Are you aware that women -- especially that one -- can think for themselves?2/23/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I haven't read the New Times article, but I remember that Napolitano was going to run against DeConcini and had to be talked down, probably by people like John Frank.

Yeah, you are right though: we have no respect for women down here, we need some of y'all from that oh so progressive valley up North to come down here and give us colonials some lessons.2/23/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|good for you tedski. admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.2/23/2006 10:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually I would not be surprised that the Gov was talked out of it because a lot of people are talked out of running for XYZ reason.

But Tucson does not have respect for women, since you know, they just elected two of them to the city council. That is always a clear sign that people do not respect women, when they elect women into positions of power.2/24/2006 11:42:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom's Mom|W|P|I dunno about your dad Ted, but he sure does love your mom.2/24/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|well sure, elizabeth. they will elect women to office, but only so long as there are men like Grijalva and DeConcini to tell them what to do.

there's no harm in electing the poor dears ... so long as they know their place.2/24/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|As far as I'm concerned regarding Ted Downing, he represents his constituents very poorly with his actions in the House. IF he doesn't like it, take it to the people by doing a petition to force a vote by city residents on Rio Nuevo. In addition, he is screwed and he thinks that he will be Paula Aboud in the race. I have a few words for Ted Downing...GOOD LUCK! He doesn't has a snow ball's chance in hell in winning the primary against Paula Aboud. A whinner doesn't become a winner as far as I'm concerned. Go back to Tucson and teach at the UA about what work you did not do in the House. I'm sure UA students wouldn't mind be lectured about your defeated proposals. What Ted Downing said and does is better suited for the college classroom, not for the Legislature.2/24/2006 04:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I must admit, I think Paula has been pretty darned responsive so far to constituents...I'm liking her more and more, "anon".2/24/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous The Great Responder|W|P|To banjo folk: I agree. Kudos to Jimmy for getting such delicious quotes from Downing, the unfabric softener.

To anonymous: There have been countless studies indicating that women make better leaders and managers. Maybe this will be more apparent to you as more of the old, male guard are replaced with women. Too bad you don't know your place (e.g. being a man) by hiding behind "anonymous" when you make such bold comments.

To the other anonymous: I disagree. What Mr. Unfabric said isn't even suited for the classroom.

To kralmajales: There's always a honeymoon period. Hopefully, she'll stay responsive if she gets re-elected.

To Ted: Was that really your mom that posted? I wish my mother knew how to just browse the web.2/25/2006 01:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom is a good son. :)

And Anonymous, grow a set and post under your real name.2/27/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|I thought it was Tom Reade's Mom.2/27/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|My mom doesn't post on here, but Tom Reade's mom does.2/27/2006 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Oh Great Responder:

The "know their place" remark was sarcasm. My complaint has been with the sexist remarks about Napolitano from Grijalva and DeConcini. Perhaps you should direct your findings to those two. They are the ones who don't seem to understand that a woman can think for herself.

In their defense, I can somewhat understand (though certainly not excuse) their behavior, having read some of the remarks from certain female (and male) posters here. The highly partisan women those two likely hang around are too blind to call out sexism and hypocricy in their own party. Check out the posts over the Grijalva remark. They'll excuse any drivel that comes out of his mouth because it suits their political worldview.

True feminists call out sexism ... wherever they find it.2/27/2006 11:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|elizabeth:
The beauty of posting anonymously is that it can reveal the sexist (or racist or partisan) assumptions of other posters ... e.g. your assumption that I'm male.

LOL!2/28/2006 02:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Whether you're a male or female jackass is of no concern to me Anonymous but you might want to learn to read since I never mention your sex.

Have a nice day.2/28/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I stand corrected, lizzy. You're not sexist.

Just crude.

Try a finishing course before you run for office again, honey. It'll do you good.2/28/2006 12:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No thanks Jane, now leave Ted's Blog alone.2/28/2006 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Who cares!|W|P|To Anon:

Stop your crying in Phoenix about Grijalva and Napolitano. They have an understanding and they both said to be ok with each other.

By the way, most of Grijalva's staff is female and would take offense of the implication that they are not feminists or stand for women in any way.

You obviously havent been around long enough to know that. Grow some thick skin and move on!2/28/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|oh, I'm sorry. For some strange reason, I thought that liberals supported free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

I totally forgot that only politically correct opinions are welcome among Democrats.

My bad!

I'll take my independent thinking somewhere where it is welcomed.

Thanks for straightening me out about where you people stand!!2/22/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Eli Segal, the attorney and entrepreneur who concieved and shepherded AmeriCorps and Welfare-to-Work, died Monday. Segal was a man who believed making the nation a better place is the highest calling, and he did so with dignified and patient force. Former Bill Clinton aide Bruce Reed has a tribute to him in Slate. I met Segal during the Wesley Clark campaign, which he headed up. A fellow campaign worker was a former AmeriCorps volunteer and Segal was enthusiastic to be able to talk to him. The man was rightly proud of the work he had done.|W|P|114062609781578686|W|P|Eli Segal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/22/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|God Speed Eli.... It was great to have met you.2/22/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|SEIU staged a press conference in the lobby of the County Administration building yesterday morning to make their case that county employees have the right to vote on "meet and confer" status. One of the speakers was long time labor stalwart Charlie Salaz, a member of SOAR and the chairman of the District 29 Democratic Club. He made the point that this issue is one of democracy and fairness. Newly signed up SEIU employees also spoke. By the way, Gabrielle Giffords was there too, and not just skulking in the back. She stood up front with purple shirted SEIU members and spoke to several of them after the event. I haven't heard if the more purportedly "progressive" candidates support the right of county employees to organize, and they weren't there to say either way. After the press conference, SEIU members went into the Pima County Board of Supervisors hearing room. The "meet and confer" issue was not on the agenda, but they wanted to make their case during the public comment period. AFSCME also was there. They had a small group wearing their familiar green shirts and sat up near the front where board members were sure to see them. I'm sure it was a nice show, until the room became a sea of purple when SEIU members showed up. SEIU pressed their case for not only meet and confer, but also for the various programs that they have where they work with management. AFSCME, on the other hand, brought up tired charges against SEIU organizers and members. The charges are insulting to workers and their antics have won them few friends on the board. Once again, AFSCME argued that there is no need for a vote, no need for strong representation. In other words, they were arguing the anti-union management case. Somewhere in New York, Jerry Wurf is turning over in his grave.|W|P|114061853148560856|W|P|SEIU Press Conference|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/22/2006 12:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh no Ted...you said nice things about Gabby! Let the games begin!

Good on SEIU for at least being blunt about this.2/21/2006 01:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Gabrielle Giffords' campaign today announced that three labor organizations, the Arizona State Association of Electrical Workers, the State Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, have all endorsed her candidacy. Patty Weiss had previously announced that the United Transportation Union endorsed her. Interestingly, the UTU and BLET both organize different jobs in the same industry. I have found it hard to fathom which are which (and it can change from city to city and railroad to railroad). Origninally, BLET was the Brotherhood of the Footboard and tended to organize the less skilled jobs, and was affiliated with the old Congress of Industrial Organizations. BLET is now an affiliate of the Teamsters, so left the national AFL-CIO with the other Change to Win unions. Arizona Teamsters have signed a "solidarity" agreement with the state AFL-CIO however. I have always found the myriad of unions associated with the railroads confusing but fascinating. The different unions evolved because of regional, political or even ethnic differences among workers. The rivalries between the people in different parts of the railway industry can resemble those arguments between your two veteran relatives, you know, the one that was in the Army and the one that was in the Marines. Another major railway union is the Transportation Communications Union, which resulted from the mergers of unions such as A. Philip Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks. These unions were important because they were among the first to organize large numbers of African-Americans. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet endorsed. The best union name ever is the Brotherhood of Maintenence of the Way, also affiliated with the Teamsters. Those are the men and women responsible for maintaining tracks, but not in the yards. If the tracks are in the yards, it's BLET, or maybe TCU, I can't remember...|W|P|114055548903092703|W|P|Giffords Earns Endorsement of Railway Employees; Weiss Earns Endorsement of Railway Employees|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/21/2006 07:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|No wonder Americans have no clue about what Union is what, who is who, and, often, why they are relevant? But, God bless em...2/21/2006 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...three Union endorsements? I have been hearing from some on here that Gabby is not progressive enough. Union endorsements in Arizona sounds pretty darned progressive or liberal to me.

Roger2/21/2006 11:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Hey now baby, get into my big black car
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
I wanna just show you what my politics are.
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
So don't deny me baby, not while you're in my reach.
I support the left, tho' I'm leanin', leanin' to the right
I support the left, tho' I'm leanin' to the right
But I'm just not there when it's coming to a fight.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
I wanna just show you what my politics are

[Cream, 1968]2/22/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Back on the Cheney thing, did you read the article in the Star about his visit? Cheney is coming to Tucson for a $500 a plate dinner for Kyl and they are having no trouble selling tickets. The press didn’t create a martyr out of this guy for the GOP base did they?

Who will Pederson have visit Tucson on his behalf to raise $500/plate (Al Gore, Howard Dean) or will he just sit down and write himself a check and take the night off?

I am sure glad everyone got on Cheney’s case so he could not come out here and raise lots of money for Kyl.2/22/2006 02:19:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Funny thing happened at the LD-26 meeting. A Giffords supporter got up to boast about the endorsements. Ann Rodriguez asked if any other candidate got interviewed. I guess not, so much for an earned endorsement. Business as usual, I rec'in. Same with the Weiss endorsement. Pretty insignificant.

You union members keep your minds open. Your leadership may just have other motives in mind. I think you should ask them why they didn't talk with any other candidate. They certainly don’t wish to give any of the other candidates a chance to represent you. I wonder what they have in mind for the membership.2/22/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|If you think the endorsements don't mean anything, you are really kidding yourself. Again, you can't deny the importance of having a record and being a known, experienced, quantity. That is why the endorsements are coming in the direction of Giffords...and then I guess Weiss, in hopes that she could win the general election.

Might not seem fair, open, or otherwise, but something to be said about earning by paying your dues. If they thought she was a dangerous or shabby or unworthy candidate, I can't imagine they would have put their good name next to hers.

Oh...and Phx Kid...you are fun to have around and are thought provoking. BUT, I saw somewhere that Cheney's approval rating with the public at large is 29%. Those 29% must have $500 to buy a chicken dinner. He is still clearly loved in some circles, but I am surprised anyone would want him campaigning for them...I bet we won't see him in the fall.

Best,

Roger2/22/2006 09:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales--Obviously the union endorsements provide credibility, money, and/or volunteers. I think what Anonymous is questioning is how "earned" are the endorsements if some of the candidates are not even considered [not even interviewed prior to the endorsement decision]. I think this is what F. Ann Rodriguez voiced concern about at the LD 26 meeting last night (see recent DataPort blog).

Another question which Anonymous is touching on, which is a fair question--Do the rank-and-file get to vote on these endorsements OR are these endorsements made solely by the leadership?2/22/2006 10:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|CC Burro:

That is the same age-old argument by republicans that leads to the question of whether a union-member should be able to opt-out of whether their dues go to politics...but I am not addressing your point...so I should try.

Sure...I agree...they should have interviewed everyone if they did not...would give the endorsement more credibility and give the organization more legitimacy. That said, they may just really know and like how Giffords has supported them in the past. No chance to anyone else, but don't all donors reward supporters and those they agree with? Some just don't get opportunities in politics because some are more well known, have earned support over time, with real public service. Latas...I fear...has not...and this very thing is the disadvantage he faces.

My guess is that the rank-and-file don't...I could be wrong...not a member. But then again, I think of Edmund Burke and representative democracy. If these endorsements don't seem earned or legitimate to rank-and-file, then I am sure they can get rid of their leadership.

So good points...but...to a more casual political analyst...the endorsements show Giffords is liberal enough...and that she commands support of party insiders...those who will vote in primaries...and frankly, with unions, those who will volunteer and make calls. Heck...it just shows her support.

Again...nothing against Latas. I would have supported him in any other race. I just like Giffords is all. And if he beats her...I will support him fully.

Again..best to you..you always make me think.

Roger2/23/2006 01:14:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Obviously there is no requirement for someone or a group to check out all of the candidates before making a selection. I'm just pointing out some non-idealness of the realities of politics.

Latas, as will most newscomers to politics, will face this disadvantage; therefore, they will need to have other assets to gain a foothold.

NOTE: Personally, I am glad the most (all?) union money goes to Democratic candidates. However, I also can understand how a union member who is a Republican would be upset seeing his/her union dues going mainly to Democratic candidates--particularly if the rules are such that that worker MUST belong to the union in order to practice his/her profession. It would be fairer if the union had a separate voluntary fund for their PACs.

Please know, if Giffords or Weiss wins in September, I won't have any problem supporting either of them. Take care.2/23/2006 07:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|kralmajales it doesn’t matter if Cheney’s rating is 17%, Kyl is going to have lots of money for the race. I bet you are correct, Cheney will be nowhere near Arizona in the fall. Kyl will be done with most of his fundraising by then and busy spending the money on the campaign.2/23/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx Kid:

You are exactly right. The same sort of thing happened with Clinton. When he was unpopular and Demos feared him campaigning for them, he still made an enormous splash in fundraising.

Kyl is going to have an enormous amount of money to spend, no doubt. The question I am developing now is if this is going to be one of those years...I won't say political realignment, because I find them rather tired as theories, but one of those years where all of the anger and distaste for the President and Congress manifests itself in a new and large class of House members and Senators.

I mean...Phx Kid...look at this. You have complete and utter control of the government. The administration is yours, the House is yours, the Senate is yours, and the Supreme Court (really) has been yours for years now. Last, I think most state governments are yours.

So why can't your party govern? That is the question that most people should be asking.

Roger2/23/2006 12:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|kralmajales - regarding the GOP there is no one person or group in charge of it, just as there is not for the Democrats. If there are 55 Republican Senators there are 55 different interests to be served there, i.e. each Senator is concerned about his/her re-election. The GOP does not control the Senate, House, and Presidency. The majority of those serving are Republicans but they do not act as one entity. I do not think either party has ever or will ever work that way.

I don’t see seething anger and distaste in the electorate. My guess is that it will come down to the same issues that every election does and that he who stays on message and has the best delivery will win.

“You have complete and utter control…” I don’t control anything beyond my one vote and the GOP as a single entity is not in charge (see above.)

Honestly I am old enough to remember when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate (for a while), and Presidency and not everything was perfect. Does April 24, 1980 ring a bell?

As to the Supreme Court maybe the Democrats should nominate a candidate that can win the White House. Your party has made two SCOTUS appointments since 1973. I cannot help it if Roe v. Wade and a liberal agenda have not worked for you politically.2/23/2006 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I should have said "your party" not "you", have complete control, so my apologies for that...smacked of being personal. Regrets...but I must take you on (smile)...so my thesis...

You are right, no party is a monolith, but it sounds like you are backing away a little from what your party could have done while in charge and what it has done in charge. You can't say that "it was those obstructionist Democrats" or "those moderates", etc. this time. You can't say you didn't have enough votes. The Republican party has been remarkably unified in its purpose and has supported the administration on virtually everything and as a result we have:

a costly war in human, diplomatic, and tax dollar figures;

enormous deficits that no fiscal conservative could ever support;

an economy that is not exactly humming;

a govt. that was cut back and replaced with cronies who had no experience (see FEMA, Mine Inspections, and a general disregard for how a government program can work...Prescription Drugs anyone)

government that does not A"get out business's way" as many conservatives claimed to want, but instead a government that actually goes out of its way to reward business with bogus contracts and frankly subsidization, breaks, and gifts (lobby scandals?).

and...

A bankrupt philosophy bred of Kristol and Kagan who suggested that we could just use the American empire to implement democracy around the world. Instead, we are not the shining light of the world and we are not respected for human rights or even freedom...any longer.

The problems we have today are not those of liberal Democrats...or a liberal philosophy, or of Clinton. There is no one to blame but the GOP who controls all sectors of our government. The responsibility is with those who govern. In this case, the Bush administration has had unified government and a court to boot. It is going to be hard to defend the GOP policies this go around and what we are seeing right now. I think you miss the anger...

Roger2/23/2006 06:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I am sorry; you must have me confused with some party hack who is bound to one days talking points. I am more of a conservative Dick Morris. Ideology trumps party for me but I also try to stay grounded in reality.

I am not backing away. I was never there. Bush has taken on a lot but the plan did not come from the traditional conservative wing. Iraq is not Pat Buchanan’s war.

The Democrats have an opportunity at times like these but most of the candidates are so liberal on social issues (i.e. abortion on demand and gun control) that they don’t win. Kerry was a mistake but someone like Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack might have beat Bush in ’04.

I could be wrong on Kyl but incumbent Senators do not loose very often. Santorum is having trouble but the guy cannot string two sentences together. Kyl is a little dry but he can speak well. It is also very interesting that Santorum’s Democratic opponent is pro-life, thus splitting an important voting block for Republicans.2/23/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I definitely agree with you about Kerry. I strongly believe that the choice of candidate was a nightmare for Democrats. I look back at my home of Appalachia for some of the answers that you provide. Appalachia was consistently Democrat territory, but Kerry appeared so arrogant and uninterested in everyday people...I don't think anyone really believed him on so many of the issues that he spoke on and frankly I think he just couldn't identify with some people and that they could not identify with him. Gore lost a lot of Appalachia too...West Virginia included. I think the talking down to people was a huge problem and Bush just never did that...I also think you are right about the gun issue.2/23/2006 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|So you agree on the gun issue. What about abortion? Maybe you should look at W V. True, Byrd and Rockefeller back legalized abortion pretty strongly. When you get to the House watch out. Mollohan and Rahall are stong pro-life. Capito is fairly pro-life. The Governor, Lietenant Governor, and the State House and Senate are all pro-life. It is still a Democrat state but Hillary (or any other Northeastern liberal) better be very careful.

Sources: prochoiceamerica.org and vote-smart.org

On the whole abortion is a loosing issue for the Democrats, except when they are pro-life.2/24/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I do agree with you on the gun issue and I think that any restriction on them does not play well in my home state. I disagree with what you say about the abortion issue. I know that there are a large number of very active voters that are pro-life, but there are also a lot of very active voters that are pro-choice. It is not a right that was only obtained through court order, but was one with a real movement behind it before Roe. But there would be states and state legislatures what would have not legalized the procedure because the majority would not have approved it. However, majority rights are not the rule in America. The very point of America is that people religious beliefs or beliefs otherwise do not automatically trump the freedoms and rights of others. Although, Roe certainly did trigger a political counter-mobilization on the pro-life side.

There is an argument that some in the Republican party (not pro-lifers) want abortion legal for very cynical reasons. If Roe were overturned today you would have a mobilization of now comfortable and happy non-voters into a movement of massive proportions. Mobilization of political activity is arguably stronger when a right is taken away, in some cases, than when it is bestowed or freed.

Pro-lifers have taken an approach so far of quietly, quietly chipping away at where a person can obtain a legal abortion, on things like fetal pain, and restrictions on medical and notification. All to slow, make it more difficult, and to set up the argument that the entire procedure should be banned. On each side of the debate, they are playing the slippery slope argument.2/24/2006 07:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|oh...and I agree with you about Hillary too, Phx Kid. Not because she is a liberal...I think a liberal with some principles could win, however, Hillary has triangulated like crazy. Maybe another point in your favor here, she has dramatically started backing away from her pro-choice arguments in public and has become "tough" on defense (which gives me the creeps). Maybe it is because she thinks she can't win in some southern and appalachian states with pro-choice and soft on terror. I also bet no one on the right will believe her and few in the middle will either (Do you believe her?). So I am not a fan of Hillary.2/24/2006 10:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Without getting distracted on the merits of Roe, the politics seem pretty clear to me. Since ’73 the Democrats have lost the House, the Senate has mostly gone Republican, and the Presidency has mostly gone to a pro-life Republican. The situation in the State Legislatures and Governor’s offices is not much better for pro-abortion Democrats. I still think that the Senate race in PA is illustrative. The most serious challenge to a Republican Senator is from a pro-life Democrat.

Another problem is that with 3-D sonograms this is no longer some obscure religious argument about life. The science and technology are now some of the greatest tools for the pro-life crowd. It can now be graphically demonstrated what is inside the womb that is being torn apart during an abortion. The medical advances will only continue so that more and more abortions will be performed on viable unborn babies.

Since you mentioned religion have you checked the percentage of the Catholic vote that Kerry received vs. what a Democrat would have received in the past? This is one more voting block that is slipping away from pro-abortion Democrats.

If this is really a winning issue then Jim Pederson should talk a lot about keeping abortion legal throughout the whole pregnancy. He should drop the words “choice” and “reproductive rights” and just pledge to “keep abortion legal.”2/24/2006 12:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why has this debate of the lousy job that the Republicans have done as the ruling party in governing degenerated into a discussion between two men on an issue that has nothing to do with them personally?

The Republicans (your party) have done a godawful job...the economic turn down was not helped by the most idiotic set of tax cuts ever devised. And the $70 million spent telling people they were going to get a little bit of money was also a waste. Iraq has been a complete waste of time and money and just did more to cause our country to be put in danger then anything else Bush could do.

Katrina was the deliberate result of treating government as though it has no real application in people's lives. This is a very nasty way of "shrinking government to the size that I can drown in a bathtub." Why should the Republicans care about the people who were killed both in New Orleans and outside of it (most of the media forgets the rest of the gulf coast but I have not) they never have any money right?

Your party hates government, America and democracy. If it did like it, it would be more willing to be open, honest and less likely to treat this country as it's private own piggy bank.2/24/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Elizabeth - two men have every right to discuss any political issue, especially one relating to human life. More or less half of abortions result in the death of a male baby and there is also an issue a paternal rights. This is a blog, i.e. uncensored. If you can’t take open debate and discussion go read the NY Times.

I never said the GOP was perfect. I was just saying that I don’t think that abortion was working out very well as a political issue for the Democratic Party. I am not surprised that you might be a little defensive because your side suffered a resounding defeat in ’04 and a major setback with the appointment of Alito. Ted Kennedy was really de-fanged on that one. He can still bark but he can no longer Bork.

If the Democrats have such great ideas then why don’t they win more elections?

Your quote about Republicans “Your party hates government, America and democracy” is easily responded to with “Democrats hate minorities because they have championed the wholesale destruction of millions of their babies through abortion.”

Did you notice the vote in the South Dakota legislature to outlaw abortion? Can you point to any other Supreme Court Decision that is still being actively challenged by states 33 years after the fact? Roe is toast. You can keep defending it if you want but it will always be undermined by its own poor legal foundation.2/26/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Back to the post about Union endorsements, some on the Data Port are claiming that Giffords dumped her campaign co-chairs in order to get these endorsements?

Is there any real truth to this rumor? What is the story Ted? I would like to rebut them.2/27/2006 12:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous CD8 Democratic Voter|W|P|Yes Kralmajales,

It's true... Gabby will throw a long time community leader under the bus for an endorsement.

It is quite unfortunate you can not rebut them and they are telling the awful truth that Giffords will do anything and everything for an endorsement.

Eddie Basha was one of her big names she advertised when she made her big announcement. The unions want to organize Basha's this year and couldn’t stand the fact Eddie Basha was a higher-up on her campaign. They told her to dump him or their endorsement went to another candidate.

She dumped him and got the endorsement.

You take it for what you want.

I personally from this action see that she does not have a backbone.
This is not someone I would want representing me in congress.
Look how quickly she gives into the special interest blackmailing her with an endorsement.

Just imagine the pressure she will face in DC and how quickly she will give into Special Interest. This is not someone we want in DC P.E.R.I.O.D.2/27/2006 09:21:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Has there been a reaction from Eddie Basha? Maybe he asked her to take his name off of the website. There seems to be a lot of speculation out there. Eddie has certainly not been "thrown under the bus."2/27/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|No he did not ask her to remove him from her campaign.

The Unions DEMANDED her to remove him from her campaign or their endorsement was going somewhere else. End of story. This is not someone who I want representing me. Someone who will give in so quickly to special interest even if they have a good purpose. Think of the pressure she will be under in DC if she gets elected.2/27/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Why would Eddie Basha ask Giffords to remove his name?2/20/2006 08:45:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Raúl Grijalva is having his campaign kickoff tommorrow at the El Casino Ballroom, at 26th Street and 3rd Avenue. The festivities start at 5:30 and continue until 8:00, or until the carne asada runs out. In addition to being a campaign kickoff, it is the Congressman's birthday. He will be turning 29.|W|P|114049479680387501|W|P|Feliz Cumpleaños, Señor Congresista|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/20/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I love Carne Asada. And one day, God Willing, I will learn to make it.

I wish I could go. I miss everything working at night.2/21/2006 08:45:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Will he have some Anglo-Saxon men making the carne asada for him???2/21/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No the Anglo-Saxon men are going to be making blood pudding. Duh.2/21/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Bangers and Mash, maybe?2/21/2006 11:39:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Bangers and mash is almost palatable - but run, fast and far, if they start serving haggis.

Though, maybe with the right salsa...

:)2/21/2006 11:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Real American|W|P|No way he's 29. You democRATS are all a bunch of liars!2/21/2006 12:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Haggis is Scottish. I doubt anyone would vote for him if he did that.

As for 'real american' wow...either that is someone faking Dittoheadness or someone needs to learn humour.2/21/2006 01:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Elizabeth,

Wow, you spelled "humor" all British and stuff.

Yes, it was me writing under an assumed name. I just wanted to pre-empt the dittoheads and their lack of sense of irony.2/21/2006 02:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Don't you have legislation to vote against or something?2/21/2006 10:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Yes Tom, I spell like the British (and Canadians) and stuff at times. You get a brownie for being observant.

You can get a cookie if you know why.2/22/2006 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Real American what are you a Product of Inbreeding? Learn to take a joke Fuck up, where did you go to School Tombstone?2/20/2006 04:49:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| The always polite and tasteful Sen. Jack Harper decided to use his time on the floor of the State Senate to launch an attack on the family of US Senate Candidate Jim Pederson. Pederson's son was recently arrested on drug charges. Harper stated that this is an indication of "corruption in the Pederson household." Why Harper decided to launch a highly personal (and possibly libelous) attack on Pederson in the State Senate is beyond me, I'm assuming that the other 29 members of that body have made up their minds on the Senate race. Also, I keep hearing from the Republicans what a big loser Pederson is going to be. If so, why attack him at all? Did they ever go after Ed Ranger this way? Senate President Ken Bennett's son is also involved in legal problems, but I'd challenge anyone to find a Democratic official who made any mention about it. I recieve most of the press releases from the State Democratic party, and I never got one about Bennett's son. You know why? Because it is a private family matter. Until we find out that Bennett, or Pederson, is pulling strings to bail their kids out of trouble, it remains exactly that. (A few bloggers wrote about the issue, I found it to be in bad taste. Wactivist wrote a bit about it, but most of the vitriol was thrown at the son. The issue was only kept alive on that blog because Clif Bennett's friends kept posting about it.) Harper's attack was not only condemned by Democrats. Sen. Carolyn Allen, a Republican who only looks moderate and bipartisan for the same reason that Robert Reich would look tall and manly next to Billy Barty and Hervé Villechaize, took offense to the attack and demanded that Harper apologize. Being the class act that he is, he refused. Word is out that President Bennett is unhappy with Harper's actions. I'll give him credit for that. I don't think that it has only to do with his family's troubles, but it is because he wants the Senate to remain somewhat civil. Any word from Jon Kyl's camp on this one? NB - Phx Kid, who seems to think that the Pederson thing is such a big issue that he wrote about it in response to a post about David Petersen, brought up the troubles with the Bush twins.
Then Pederson will get as much privacy as the Bush twin's got when they could not stop drinking in public.
Um, I don't recall John Kerry making the twins an issue, although I do remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of Chelsea Clinton and the Gore daughters. That aside, think about what you said for a second: they deserve privacy when they are drunk in public.|W|P|114048120371042609|W|P|Wow, His Name Already Contains Most of "Jackass"|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/20/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I didn’t think it was too big an issue except that it came right after all the “coverage” of Cheney’s quail hunt. The timing was amazing. It is almost as if the younger Pederson is secretly working for the GOP.

A few things to note. I would not know Harper if I bumped into him on the sidewalk. I had no insider information but was just, correctly, speculating that Pederson would not get a pass on this one.

It does involve the elder Pederson if the news story is correct that he owns the house in which drugs were found.

I am not saying anyone deserves anything. I was just speculating that not everyone would care about Pederson’s privacy. But on that topic if the candidate wants family privacy he would have been well advised before he ran for office to make sure that his son was not driving around with drugs in the car and storing them in dad’s house.

By the way, I am not standing up for Harper. His comments were inappropriate at best.

For the record, Sen. Carolyn Allen is not moderate she is a liberal.

Kyl issued a very humble press release wishing the Pederson family well.

Tedski, you are doing a great job and I am glad to see you covering the Pederson drug bust story.2/20/2006 07:12:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--

What "excuse" did Mr. Statesman Harper provide for bringing this up on the floor? Do you know what the segue/context was?

With 1000+ bills, ELL, immigration problems, the budget, the uninsured working poor and other issues to deal with, it's amazing that Harper thought that this was the important item to bring to the floor today.2/20/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Man...all I can say is that Harper better be as squeaky clean as AJAX.

Maybe they are a little more worried than some have thought.2/20/2006 08:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|OH...it would be nice to have a copy of the speech Senator Harper gave, does anyone have a link to it?2/20/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Some gnome is going to send it to me when they get it.2/21/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahahaha...gnomes are a lot better in the garden.

Roger2/21/2006 11:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|According to an online story posted on azstarnet.com. Harper has backtracked and apologized. Here is the link:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/116881.php2/22/2006 12:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|According to Charles Goyet this morning, Bennett personally phoned Pederson to apologize on behalf of the Senate.

Keep in mind that Jack Harper is the guy who once called into a talk show that Slade Mead was on and pretended to be someone else (although Slade recognized him from his voice and called him on it.)

You know, poll after poll after poll has shown that Americans are sick and tired of all the partisanship and want elected officials to work together to solve problems. I don't know if it would work in Harper's solid Republican district, but I can conceive of an opponent running on the platform of pointing out some of these blantantly partisan attacks and dirty tricks by Harper, then pledging to work with whoever else is elected to solve problems 'like the people expect us to do.'

Maybe a pipe dream, but I've always wondered how a real straight shooting candidate would do against some of these demogogues.2/22/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Futs|W|P|I love Hervé Villechaize. He was one hot french dworf.2/22/2006 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Probably the reason Jack did his dirty from the floor of the legislature is because his rant most likely was slanderous. There is a common law legal exception to slander for anything said in by a legislator in the course of debate on the floor of a duly constituted and in-session meeting of the legislature. Harper's hiding behind his position to character assassinate a political opponent and escape possible legal consequences.

Calling him a jackass demeans jackasses. Being a Democrat, I have a fondness for jackasses, them being so close to donkeys. No, Harper is pure pacyderm poop.2/20/2006 07:31:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Actual thing I overheard my brother saying to a reporter yesterday:
A constituent contacted me at a Knockout Pills show...
|W|P|114044601218197529|W|P|At Least It Wasn't F.A.N.S.S.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/18/2006 06:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Folks at the capitol are saying that the troubles in David Petersen's office are worse than reported and he may resign before his term is up in January. This creates a strange situation. The Governor appoints a replacement should there be a vacancy, but the replacement would have to be a Republican. I'm putting my money on Betsy Bayless. I really have no reason to say that other than intuition, but Bayless is a capable Republican that the Governor has shown she's comfortable with. There is no reason to think that the two Republicans that have already expressed an interest in running, Rep. Laura Knaperek and Sen. Dean Martin, would change their minds if Petersen were to leave early. In fact, the Republican mahouts would love to take out any Republican that Napolitano would appoint. I wonder, however, if they really want a primary between two of their legislative leaders. Heck, I'd be glad to see them both as far away from lawmaking as possible, even if it means one gets a nice desk and better salary. My understanding was that Knaperek was their choice to run for Sen.Harry Mitchell's seat. Mitchell's seat has to be part of any calculus that leads to their dream of a "veto-proof" majority. They must be putting some pressure on her to stop a possible primary with Martin (especially if it splits the vote with a Napolitano appointee), and also to keep her in what is a must win race for them for Senate. NB - I reported before that the Democratic party hadn't made recruitment for the Treasurer's race a priority. I recieved an e-mail stating that there is a candidate: Richmond J. Vincent, a bank executive from Phoenix. I hope he becomes a little more active. Rich, the iron is hot right now! By the way, Knaperek is the one who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow a vote to modernize our state's spousal rape laws. Just so y'all know.|W|P|114031524693263362|W|P|Poorly Sourced Rumor of the Day|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/18/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Hey, is it true that Pederson’s son was arrested on drug and weapons charges? In the vain of all the jokes about Cheney will you be making jokes about this one?

I sure hope Jim Pederson holds a news conference as soon as possible to explain this to the residents of Arizona. We don’t want a cover-up.

I know this is off topic but since everyone has been saying Pederson is such a strong candidate I want to know what my next U.S. Senator thinks about this issue. Is this what you meant by his new staff using strong-armed tactics?2/18/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Wasn't is true that George H.W. Bush's son was arrested for drunk driving and this info didn't come out until years later (during the campapign)? Wasn't it also true that George W. Bush would not answer the reporter's question "Have you ever tried cocaine?"?2/18/2006 08:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Wow. I thought maybe the story was not true because I found only one article on www.kvoa.com but I found a second article on www.kpho.com saying the same thing but with more detail, right under Top Headlines.

The elder Pederson, the candidate, did release a statement. He asked the public to respect his family’s privacy. Yeah right. He’ll get about as much respect as Cheney just got. OK you say, Cheney is a public official and this is someone’s kid. Then Pederson will get as much privacy as the Bush twin’s got when they could not stop drinking in public.

Another important fact, according to the article on the kpho web site, is that the elder Pederson owns the house in which the drugs were found. Is this his property at 1545 W. Glenn Drive in Phoenix? If this is true then it is fair game to bring the elder Pederson in on this.

If this were a Republican the headline in the paper might read “Senate Candidate Owns Drug Stash House!”2/18/2006 08:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|cc burro Very good point but George H.W. Bush is not running for U.S. Senator from Arizona.

I am not sure if it matters at this point what questions George W. Bush did or did not answer. He will soon be on the downhill of his second term, probably never again to run for office.

The current story is about Pederson. With Cheney’s friend alive and out of the hospital the press might even cover the story about Pederson for a few minutes until they move onto the next scandal.2/18/2006 09:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Knaperak is going for Senator Mitchell's seat? This is the first I have heard of that.


The word I keep hearing is that Mark Thompson is going for it. He had at one point filed the preliminary paperwork. I could not find anything regarding the filing on the Sec. of State's website so he may have changed his mind.

If Laura goes for that seat, who is going to run for the state rep ones on the Republican side? (Rhetorical question, I can and will ask Bruce about it.)2/18/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To PHX KID--

[laughter]
Yeah--That doesn't sound too good for a candidate. However, didn't state Senator Bennett's son get in trouble with the law recently? I don't blame Bennett for what his son does, nor do I blame Pedersen for what his son does.

At least Pedersen didn't shoot his friend in the face!!!2/18/2006 10:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|No he didn't shoot his friend but his son may have just shot him in the foot.2/18/2006 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid-

Of course I won't be making jokes about it, because I am a partisan weasel.2/18/2006 11:08:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|That's true! His son has VERY bad timing.

The damage may depend on whether the gory details come out and the story has legs. More likely this is just a blip.2/19/2006 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Knaperek wasn't alone in opposing a repeal to our archaic and ridiculous marital rape law. That wingnuttiest of wingnuts, Warde Nichols, actually said, out loud during the committee in which he, Knaperek and Mark Anderson all voted against the repeal, that a woman becomes the property of her husband when she marries and therefore is subject to having sex with him anytime the husband wants.

Somebody slapped some sense into those ninnies, because Nichols moved to reconsider in committee a few weeks later and the repeal passed out of committee unanimously.

Still, a perfect example of the attitudes of that crew - including Laura Knaperek. Makes me shudder to think what she'd do in a Senate seat or in the Treasurer's Office. Not that Dean Martin is much of a bargain either...2/19/2006 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Didn't Ted Downing vote against the Spousal Rape Bill?2/19/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger the byce man|W|P|I personally don't get why K-Nap would want to be treasurer. How can she ensure men don't get arrested for raping their wives?2/20/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Yeah, Ted did vote against the repeal. He said it was based on some wrong information one of the bill's opponents gave him just before the vote. He apologized profusely. Make what you want of that. He's been solid on every other piece of sexual violence legislation. And the margin was rightly large enough that his one misplaced vote didn't matter on this one. Still...2/17/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm stealing from Espresso Pundit today, he won't complain. Besides, what the heck is he going to do about it? Sen. Dean Martin has taken out papers to run for State Treasurer, this at a time that David Petersen is talking about leaving the office amid criticism of his management style. His office has been called "a mess" and the "morale is horrible," and that's from his own staffers. I'm wondering if Rep. Jerry Lewis can be brought over here to be Martin's running mate. Despite the troubles in the office, the State Democratic party did not consider recruiting candidates for the office a priority. Sen. Ruth Solomon was defeated by Petersen by less than 30,000 votes, a bit more than three percent of the vote. There is no reason to think that a good Democrat couldn't win this office, especially with a strong Governor and the turmoil in the office. It is a hard office to recruit for, however; treasuer (or most of the constitutional offices for that matter) doesn't lead to either fame or higher office. In many states, state treasurer is a ticket to higher office. Sen. Mary Landrieu, for example, was treasurer of Louisiana before getting elected to the Senate. We, however, have never had such a tale. The only treasuer one can name is Dan Garvey, governor from 1948-1951, had been treasurer not of the state but of Pima County, but also served as Secretary of State and became governor on the death of Sidney P. Osborn. In 1990, Republican Treasurer Ray Rottas attempted to move up to secretary of state from the treasurer's office, but was trounced by Richard Mahoney, a well connected attorney who had never held elected office in an otherwise middling year for Democrats. Something about our state's political structure prevents these offices from being effective springboards for higher office, but that never seems to stop the Republicans from being able to recruit candidates for them. Espresso Pundit also reported on the shake-up in Jim Pederson's campaign. Greg, you got scooped by Wactivist on that one. About a month ago, Pederson brought on a new team. The old team seemed to be spinning its wheels. The campaign has already been doing a much better job of getting the candidate out there and building support. They already have a headquarters down here (not open yet, but they have space rented), and the polling numbers look pretty good, despite the lackluster campaign. I mean, Jon Kyl is polling at 52% against Pedersen, and the campaign has sucked until recently. What does that say about Kyl's campaign? Espresso Pundit takes particular note that new Pederson campaign Pooh-Bah Mario Diaz has been called "bare knuckled" and "cut-throat." Yeah, and? Cut-throat operatives are a problem for Republicans now? NB - I've heard Diaz called worse, but I won't repeat it here because he's bare knuckled and cut-throat.|W|P|114018631915594999|W|P|That's Amore!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/17/2006 09:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Well I will say one thing for Dean Martin. He is a charming dude. When I appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of the Republicans, he was the kindest (Harper was nice too) and funniest of the bunch. Gave me a little dig for being at U. of A.

On policy though, I would take a close look at who he votes with the most...Gould? Jarrett? Harper? Huppenthal?

So do the Republicans have no one but "arch-conservatives" to offer the state? What ever happened to the Betsy Bayless' of the world?2/17/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jeff|W|P|So do the Republicans have no one but "arch-conservatives" to offer the state?

I've been wondering the same thing since about 2000, regarding both the state and federal level.2/17/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|On the issue of arch-conservatives, look to when clean elections started. With that in place the hard right of the GOP does not have to go hat in hand to the Rockefeller Republicans (I know, I know I am not suppose to use that term because it is dated but I do anyway.) Because of this the far right does not have to moderate their message in order to raise money.

Fanatics from the right will fill out $5 forms all day long for their candidate. Let the games begin!2/17/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|mario diaz is the devil dressed in men's petite clothing from burlington coat factory.2/17/2006 05:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|how do you know it's men's clothing?2/17/2006 06:33:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|On the subject of bare-knuckled advisors and hypocrisy...

One of the many things that convinces me that Bush 43 is not the internally-practicing reborn Christian that he professes to be is his close relationship with Rove--Rove has no scruples about his methods. He's not bare-knuckled--he uses knives.

When I was young, I knew a lot of reborn practicing Christians--they were decent, strong, good people and they wouldn't have come within 5 feet of Rove--Rove is the antithesis of what they stand for. This is one of the many things that tells me that Bush's religiosity is either self-delusion or knowing duplicity--or some of both.

Also, Bush allowed the lying slime campaign against McCain in South Carolina to continue without speaking out against it. Bush didn't have the integrity to disavow it. Bush may participate in prayer breakfasts and talk about faith and Jesus, but Bush is no internally-practicing reborn Christian.

I wonder how many of these religious-professing Congressmembers and Senators have been bullshitting their way up the political ladder [and padding their pockets along the way]?2/17/2006 11:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|So he's devil...hey but it will take the devil to win that race! More power to him.2/18/2006 01:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To PHX KID--

Likewise for the left.2/18/2006 02:04:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|The definitions of "operative"--include the words--efficient, secret agent, espionage, surgical, capable of producing an effect. So isn't "cut-throat" already implied?2/18/2006 07:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|cc burro Yes, clean elections would work for both sides but when I look at the State Legislature it seems to be working much better for the right than the left.

Take HB2254 (fetal pain) that passed the House 2/13/06. That is an obscure far right issue yet it passed 36-21-3, not just a majority but a convincing margin.

Hey, if Ted Downing voted against the bill, HB2254, does that mean that he supports fetal pain? Just checking because he is from the party of compassion and justice and all.2/18/2006 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To PHX KID--

You're right re the clean elections and the state government. But clean elections is good in that it encourages potential candidates who are not inside either party's bubble to run--new faces/ideas.

If it is true that a fetus at 20+ weeks experiences pain when aborted, then I don't know Ted Downing reasoning. Also, I don't know Ted Downing.2/18/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|phx kid -

You are certainly correct that Clean Elections has given a huge boost to the ideological wackos that that are the base of the Republican party. However, I think it is premature to declare this a permanent or even an enduring effect.

Remember that the current Republican majority has been built by quietly organizing the radical right at the grassroots level, mostly through evangelical churches, while publicly minimizing their role, and branding the Republican party as the party of strength and responsibility - the party of grownups - as distinct from the crazy, socialist, long-haired left.

What Clean Elections has done in Arizona is to rip away this mask of respectability and moderation, and expose the true face of the Republican party. And recent opinion polls seem to show that the public is repulsed and running left:

Over 90% want more investment in education.

Over 80% want universal health care.

Over 70% want to raise the minimum wage.

Less than 40% want to ban gay marriage.

Less than 30% want to use the budget surplus for a tax cut.

I particularly emphasize the last point because anyone familiar with Arizona politics knows how remarkable that is.

So I think it's too soon to judge Clean Elections on this point. Remember, this is still a very new program. This year will only be the fourth time the system has been used, and I think it is going to be a very interesting year.2/18/2006 04:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|With numbers like these, then why do we have so many extremely conservative Republicans dominating the state legislature and Congress? Are the DEMs not offering up good candidates in these LDs and CDs?2/18/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Dear CC Burro:

You ask the question of the day in my opinion. I think this...

The Republican advantage in this state (and nationally) gave Republicans the power to govern. Once they had power and no one was looking some showed their true colors. When you have absolute power, you can do a lot without any fear of losing. What this means in our state is that groups like the Center for Arizona Policy run off to the Repubs with extreme ideas and the repubs support them...over and over.

The point I am making is that if the average voter knew what is going on in the statehouse, they couldn't possibly support them. Most voters in Arizona are independents now...and I believe that most Republicans are moderates who don't like the economic and tax policy of demos. Another cause of this problem is the lack of journalistic attention to state politics. No one knows what is going on, so the Repubs can be as extreme as they want.

So the solution? You have to expose them and get Republican voters to see that they really don't share their values. I think the Governor needs to take every ounce of her political capital this campaign and run a package campaign against "Munsil...and the "extreme" Republican legislature". They are "peas in a rotten pod" and are people that average, establishment Republicans shouldn't support...even to keep control. All people want is reasonable leadership...and these folks are unreasonable. Bring up example after example and hope that moderate republicans shift or that they stay home on these candidates.

I think people are already thinking "throw the bums out" this time. Got to give em a reason to do it all the way down the ballot.

I really think if Dems get their act together, they can take back the state legislature this time. I just hope they are running candidates and are ready to do a coordinated campaign.

Roger2/20/2006 12:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|There's an even simpler explanation:

With the way legislative districts are drawn in Arizona, legislative elections are won or lost in the primaries. And the people most likely to vote in a primary are the hardcore partisans, the wackos (myself included) on either end of the spectrum. You want moderate leadership? Find a way to motivate moderate voters to exercise their rights in the primaries.

Until then you'll only get the wingnuts who only venture out of their bunkers and from under their tinfoil hats to vote or brandish guns at the border. And the cycle will continue.2/20/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Good point Michael. Your post made me think of something else. Because there is little attention to state rep/senate races (as I mention) and because they are won and lost in the primaries with the most vigilant of voters (as you mention), doesn't the responsibility fall to the parties to recruit good candidates? I know that they have limited power, but those primary voters are loyal party voters AND these candidates are most likely to be seen inside party functions like coffees, precinct meetings, precinct chairs, etc.

Time for an empirical question. How are state rep. and state senate race candidates recruited by parties?

Roger2/20/2006 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|michael excellent analysis. By definition the moderates are not highly passionate about only one or two issues so that leaves the process to wackos, me included. So when the formative work is being done during the primaries only the truly motivated are out there working on politics.

kramajales I do not know how the Democrats work and I do not know exactly how the higher ups in the Republican Party recruit. An example of how it actually works on the GOP side can now be seen in CD8.

Kolbe gets a little to far to the left for many of the GOP rank and file. Graf runs and establishes himself as the conservative alternative to Kolbe. This did NOT come from GOP HQ.

Kolbe steps down and the powers that be seem to have lined up behind Mike Hellon. In a Graf vs. Hellon race Graf would have a tough battle on his hands. But then Steve Huffman gets in the race. I do not know what Huffman was thinking and maybe he got in before he saw who was behind Hellon. Anyway Hellon and Huffman are going to compete for similar voters leaving Graf in a great position. If this were not enough several other candidates have entered. The order of the day seems to be everyone for himself.2/21/2006 05:14:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|PHX KID--There are a lot of us who would be referred to as "moderates" who are very passionate about our politics.

Do you notice how most governors of either party tend to be a little more moderate than the party activists? It is easier to be ideologically pure when you don't have the responsibility of actually governing, developing reality-based policies, etc.2/21/2006 07:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Interesting about Hellon, Huffman, and Graf...I am hearing the opposite...that some of the big money types in Tucson are trying to get Hellon out and Huffman in...add to that his recent and very public "delivery" of the Rio Nuevo Tax District Extention to Tucson and I am betting that the Hellon folks better be circling the wagons.2/21/2006 10:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|cc burro I am not saying that everyone involved is a hardcore purist but I think the majority is. Also a lot of people who say they are moderate are actually quite passionate about an issue or two.

For example would you support parental notification, spousal notification, fetal pain bill, late term ban, clinic regulations, or a ban on any government funding, etc. for abortions?

kralmajales you may be correct. I am not from the Hellon/Huffman wing of the party. The supporters listed on Hellon’s recent mail-out did at least include Bruce Ash. The rest of his Advisory Committee seems to be mostly just pro-abortion Republicans.

Either way there is no one person or committee running the show, at least on the GOP side. The CD8 race on the Republican side is looking like it will be a huge train wreck from which Randy may walk away without a single hair out of place.

Actually the Democratic side looks like a free-for-all as well. No one person or group in charge. I think it is great the way it is. Let the candidates compete for every singe vote.2/22/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|KRALMAJALES--I've heard from a reliable source that Jim Click and Don Diamond are supporting Huffman. The only time I saw Huffman was on Arizona Illustrated with Bill Buckmaster [one-on-one] recently. He had a dead fish persona. Never smiled once. And no gravitas. But, from what I've heard, Huffman is adept at playing hard ball.

PHX KID--I have very mixed feelings about abortion. I'd say Yes to several things you listed and no/uncertain re the rest. The reality is that teenagers are going to have sex; therefore, I support education of teenagers re responsible behavior with regards to sex and the consequences of irresponsible sex. [abortions "safe/legal/rare"]2/22/2006 05:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|If it’s true that Huffman has Click and Diamond behind him then the GOP primary is going to be expensive. Hellon is a credible candidate with Ray Carroll as his campaign manager and Paul Ash on his side. He also has a lot of long time party insiders behind him, ie Jackie Egan, John Munger, Linda Barber, Toni Hellon, etc. I don’t see a big difference on the issues between Hellon and Huffam so it may get personal between them.2/22/2006 09:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Bingo...anon (above me) and CC Burro. Thank you both for the confirmation...that is what I was hearing as well. I think the hard (and very public work) Huffman used to get the dough from the state tax system into Rio Nuevo (Tucson Downtown Redevelopment to those up north) will be credit-claimed to death and, I also bet, will gain the support of the developers getting city funds downtown.

Just a thought...Nintzel???? Karamargin?2/23/2006 01:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I'll be very interested to see how far to the right Huffman/Hellon position themselves [and on what issues] to win the primary.2/23/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|CC Burro:

Excellent point...they are going to have to move to the right because those who show up in the Republican party primaries are...
party insiders, the most active members of the party...and the most conservative. So they will have to move to the right...to capture these voters...or will have to find some way to bring out "new" primary voters (hard to do).

If I were Graf and his manager I would feel great. I can be true to myself, build on my support from the last race, and I will have (so far) Len Munsil (so far) as the lead Republican candidate at the top of the primary ticket. If Munsil pulls out conservative voters statewide, my bet is that they will also vote for Graf.2/16/2006 07:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My brother found out yesterday that an AFSCME organizer has been calling him "anti-labor" because the organizer thinks that he has been writing critical things on a blog about them. The trouble is, my brother doesn't have a blog. Hmm. What blog could they be talking about? He wouldn't be the first person called "anti-labor" by some of the people that AFSCME has parachuted in recently in their fight against SEIU. Elected officials that have chosen to support the effort of county employees to get "Meet and Confer" status have also been classified as "anti-labor." The irony is that AFSCME is calling these folks "anti-labor" for supporting the right of county employees to organize. I suppose this makes agreeing with county management's rather broad application of the "right to work" law a "pro-labor" stance. This battle has now moved beyond the spitting contest between AFSCME and SEIU. The rights of employees to organize in this state is at stake. SEIU has been asking for the Board of Supervisors to allow for employees to get a vote on "Meet and Confer" status, essentially, so that they can have some sort of union agreement that is binding. The call for a vote doesn't name a particular union, employees could choose SEIU, AFSCME or the Wobblies if they prefer. This, of course, has been resisted by county administration. The County Attorney's office is also claiming that such an agreement is illegal (despite that it exists in other places), but refuses to actually issue a public written opinion saying so. AFSCME deserves to be tweaked over SEIU moving into their turf, but they need to realize that if this call for a vote can't pass a Democratic Board of Supervisors in a liberal county, it will only embolden those in both government and the private sector who would love to see nobody organize. This fight isn't on behalf of SEIU, it's on behalf of the entire labor movement.|W|P|114014489947291856|W|P|I Guess Name Tags Are in Order?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/16/2006 09:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Senor Anonymous|W|P|What do the CD 8 candidates think of this situation?2/16/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Does any other state or county agency in Arizona have a binding agreement? No? Why not? Perhaps it's against state law/legal opinons?2/16/2006 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I believe other governmental agencies have agreements (TUcson Police Officers Association), the TUcson Fire Fighters, and within school districts, you got TEA, AFT and CWA; so there is a way for unions to coexist within governmental entities ...2/16/2006 11:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|If they fail to get this vote through, the real losers won't be either of the unions, it will be the workers themselves.

Besides, union organizing is like anything else-- if you dawdle and don't push forward with the duties of your job, then somebody else will step in and do it their way.2/17/2006 06:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Anonymous-

No county agency has "meet and confer," but other Government agencies do, such as TUSD and the City of Tucson. Mostly because it has never been tried.

There was an opinion issued in the seventies that supported meet and confer status in Pima County, but unfortunately, no union acted on it. Near as I can tell, there haven't been sufficient changes in the statute to think that there really could be a total reversal like what the County Attorney is claiming.2/17/2006 02:51:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|There was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1987 making the 70's opinion null and void.2/17/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Also, the County is an extension of the State, whereas Cities and School Districts are not, so justifying the County's ability to have a Union because City's and District's do is not a valid argument.2/17/2006 04:06:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I can't believe someone like Tedski who is so knowledgeable and has a brother for a State Rep. isn’t aware of the regulations from the state level.2/17/2006 07:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This battle has now moved beyond the spitting contest between AFSCME and SEIU. The rights of employees to organize in this state is at stake.

Perhaps this is SEIU's fault for pushing this agenda? They reap what the sow? Opened up a can of worms? In all reality nothing is going to change. This has been the practice by State and County Agencies for eons here in Arizona, not by choice but merely by law.

Let’s review: Voters elect State Senators and House Members as well as attorney generals. This can only be changed by an ARS change (state house/senate) or a new attorney general ruling overturning yet another previous AG opinion. (how silly would that look, multiple opinions by various AG’s over a period of 30 years.)

Perhaps SEIU should be pushing for a State Statue change in Phoenix.2/18/2006 12:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|a lot of disinformatinal crap on here.

There has never been a "ruling" on this.

In 1979 the Attorney General issued an OPINION, which was something that did NOT happen in 1987. In 1987 the AG specifically DECLINED to opine on the issue. This seems to be the crux of LaWall's non-opinion; that because one AG issued an opinion and another declined to do so, this represents some kind of legal contradition.

That's what regular folks call "lawyerly obfuscation" and is known in the vernacular as "a steaming pile of crap".2/18/2006 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I'll put money that SEIU flops on their face with this issue.

Union Workers don’t need radical extremist in a Union. They need rational Unions that know how to work to get things done.

We all know how effective radical extremism is in the end don’t we?2/18/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Go away SEIU! The Pima County Democratic Party made use of your "Barney Bus" not Pima County Government. The taxpayers of Pima County don't need to have their government scratching your back as a payback for the bus.2/18/2006 03:42:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Ha.

You say you'd "put money" on it but you post anonymously.

Tell you what - the host of this site knows me, and I'll hpaapily take your money. How much? $100?

SEIU is the fastest growing union in the US. They grew by over 200,000 members in 2005, their best year ever. So I'm not sure what you mean by "get things done".

Nor am I sure what you mean by "radical extremeists". SEIU's politics are very, very simple: Providing and protecting high-quality services, and raising standards and improving working conditions for the people who provide them. That's it. And they support politicians who support them.2/16/2006 07:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've been getting e-mails and posts from people who claim not to understand why I support Gabrielle Giffords. Of course, I've said it a thousand times on here (okay, not a thousand...so don't bother writing a correction). I was thinking of writing a post saying that I only will support candidates that I've hung out with at Hotel Congress. This would create a difficulty should Jonathan Paton change his mind and decide to run; my vote would be up for grabs. Such overly snarky entries seem to be lost on my more irony challenged posters. So here it goes: Giffords has built an impressive progressive record in the state legislature. She has been able to do this despite serving with some of the most retrograde, neanderthal characters you will find in 21st century American politics. I have yet to see an example of Giffords selling out and voting with the far right just so she can get her name on something that passes. We have had a lot of Democratic legislators that fall into this trap, including some current ones that are beloved by progressives. Her record has earned her a "MVP" from the Sierra Club, as well as endorsements from folks like Clague Van Slyke, Steve Farley and Bill Risner, who have been active in progressive politics for years. These aren't people who need to "sell out" for political advantage. Yeah, she is close to some people that I'm not a big fan of. And yes, the DLC likes her. Consider this for a second: those ubiquitous lists that the DLC puts out of rising stars or whatever term they use have also included people like Barack Obama and Gavin Newsome, not exactly the heralds of some Dixiecrat movement. By the way, Howard Dean was a favorite of the DLC throughout his tenure as governor too. When an elected official is willing to stand up for the right things, I feel that I should stand with them. If we are willing to throw someone with an otherwise great record overboard just because there is a new face that says all the right things, who the heck is going to stick with us? If building a strong progressive record isn't enough to get support, why would someone in office even bother? I saw this most strikingly in the Paul Hackett-Sherrod Brown race in Ohio. Brown had built a record that looked a heck of a lot more like fellow Ohioan Dennis Kucinich than Joe Lieberman, but had a primary opponent in Hackett, a more conservative candidate. For some reason, progressive activists classified Hackett as the more liberal candidate, and Brown as some establishment sell-out. A quick perusal of Brown's record would show this to be ridiculous. When Hackett dropped out yesterday, I recieved several e-mails from people claiming that conservative Democrats forced him from the race to help their candidate. Eh? I think we do well with any of the three leading candidates, Giffords, Patty Weiss or Jeff Latas. However, I'd like to stick with someone with a proven record. She has shown that she can do the job, and should be rewarded for the job she's done with my vote. NB - I'll get an e-mail from someone saying "You didn't mention Alex Rodriguez." Yeah, I didn't. I don't see his candidacy going anywhere. The Statehood Day edition of the Arizona Daily Star featured a story called "'A-Rod' Has a Simple Plan to Win Kolbe's Seat in the House." The article itself didn't feature any details of the plan, for all I know they were refering to what bands were in his CD collection. The only "simple plan" that leads to a Rodriguez victory involves arranging for Weiss, Latas and Giffords to go on a hunting trip with the Vice-President.|W|P|114010324337826682|W|P|Why I Am Supporting Gabrielle Giffords|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/16/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ohhh, the A-Rod comment was snarky Ted--but damn funny! Bwhahaha!!!!2/16/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Excellent, Tedski!

That was the most well-reasoned argument I've heard any Democrat make for a candidate in quite some time.

It's about time someone made sense in this state. I want you.2/16/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|A-Rod will finish ahead of Latas. He's the only proven vote-getter in the race other than Giffords and he received more votes than her last time they ran.2/16/2006 10:04:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Senor Anonymous|W|P|Tedski - I def want to stay out of this ... but let's be fair.

When Barak Obama found out he was listed as a DLC guy, what did he do? He wrote them and forced them to remove his name.

Gabby put it up on her webpage.

I'm not saying Barak is right and Giffords is wrong - hell the DLC pointed to her as a rising star - which is clearly true. I'm just saying pretending like Gabby didn't like the DLC back is a little misleading. Before this whole congress thing, she was pretty proud of her DLC affiliation. If the plan is to pretend that isn't the case -- THAT is wrong.

I personally will vote for a candidate who I trust and respect even if we dont' agree on everything before someone who is just lockstep with my views without those other qualities.

I just hope this doesn't devolve into a "progressive" off where the way we decide who is the most "progrssive" is by counting the number of times people use the word in campaign lit, the number of progressives who amke an endorsement, and the number of progressive organizations that support someone.

My point - If Gabby's record and experience and leadership is enough - focus on that. Her supporters should stop trying to wash away the DLC thing with Spin because it is there and won't go away. Use it - don't try to hide from it.2/16/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Howard is not a DLCer now, why? He knows the truth is why. We also know the truth about Gabby. Progressive, I DON'T THINK SO. I have looked at her voting recorded when she was actually there to vote. Maybe if she were more interested in Arizonans instead of traveling to China, she may have gotten may respect. Go Patty.2/16/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I don't know, I think Gabby is pretty progressive for a Republican.2/16/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Excellent post Ted. Based on the folks that I know who are supporting her, I think she has a fantastic shot at winning. In fact, I think she is going to win.2/16/2006 12:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To TEDSKI--

Some of your reasoning is problemmatic:

Giffords was a state representative--she resigned her position--she chose to get off of one boat in order to compete to get onto a bigger boat. Therefore, by supporting another candidate over her to get onto a new boat, no one is "throwing her overboard."

Your words imply that she deserves to be viewed as already being on the boat. Yet, at the two previous forums, she has been saying that she is running because we're facing really dire problems now [with the implication that therefore we need someone like her in Congress]. If she really believes that things are so dire that we need someone like her in Congress, then Kolbe's decision to not run for re-election shouldn't have affected her decision to run in CD 8. Yet [unlike Latas and Schacter] she didn't step up to the plate until Kolbe made his decision public. Thus, her statement on why she is running does not ring true.

The last phrase in your statement "If building a strong progressive record isn't enough to get support, why would someone in office even bother?" is absurd. She HAS gotten support of the LD 28 voters by being re-elected to the state senate. Perhaps you're implying that the main purpose of building a progressive record is the expectation of continuing to move up the political food chain?

Re Hackett--There is irony in what you say--If Brown is the more liberal candidate, with a record that looks "a lot more like fellow Ohioan Dennis Kucinich than Joe Lieberman," and Hackett comes off more conservative than Brown [along with sounding like a true straight-talk-express, which voters are yearning for], then WHY do the party leaders think that Brown would have a better chance then Hackett in winning a very Reddish state like Ohio???2/16/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, I wonder how much the anger over your supporting Giffords is related to the view you are more like the press then not?

But you have a good reason to support her and you have never tried to get anyone to not support the other strong candidates so I cannot se why this is a problem. Then I remember: Democrats and cats.2/16/2006 12:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeff|W|P|It's one thing if someone disagrees with you and explains his or her opinion in comments, e.g. "Actually, I like Latas because he majored in Aerospace Engineering and Aerospace Engineers rock!" What I find strange is people getting angry with you for expressing your political opinion in your own blog, e.g. "How dare you endorse her! What are you thinking?"2/16/2006 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To Elizabeth Rogers--

I love Ted's threads because he provides facts and exposes discrepancies (like the press is supposed to)with wit/humor(so unlike the press)and reasonableness. I don't have a problem with Ted supporting Giffords. [If Giffords win, I'll support her 100%.] What I do have a problem with is a few of the illogical or absurd arguments he made to explain his support.

I agree with your remark re the Democrats/cats. That's why it concerns me to see bloggers blogging blatantly-untrue remarks--"Giffords is conservative" [perhaps this bloggers is coming from the far left of the spectrum?]--or petty remarks--"Patty will fall on her face". It seems that some people are hardening themselves into positions such that they may not be willing to put their full support behind whoever wins the Democratic primary.

Lastly, Ted might want to add that Napolitano is DLC-associated. The DLC IS part of the Democratic party, that is, if you believe that the Democratic moderates have a place in the party.2/16/2006 02:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Hey Ted! You forgot Francine damnit!2/16/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|cc burro asked:

WHY do the party leaders think that Brown would have a better chance then Hackett in winning a very Reddish state like Ohio???


Because Brown has won several elections in Ohio and Hackett has won NONE.2/16/2006 06:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I don't understand this alleged aversion to the DLC. From what I understand, it's not seen as liberal ... er progressive ... enough but as Tedski points out, so called progressives like Dean have been affiliated with DLC.

And then there are the Clintons. Remember them? Clinton pere founded the thing and Clinton mere is a leader in the organization.

You anti-DLCers got a problem with Bill and Hill??2/16/2006 10:36:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|RE DLC--

I think that some progressives dislike the DLC because of the DLC's stance on the Iraq War and NAFTA and concerns re DLC's sources of funding.

I recommend that you go to the DLC's website and read their proposals. The DLC'ers are moderate Democrats--not "Republican lite". I particularly agree with their view that the DEMs need to produce/articulate a well thought-out, positive, compelling, reality-based progressive platform if the DEMs are to win over a majority of the electorate--not just be anti-Bush, anti-Republican, the anti-party.2/16/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|To CC:

I support Gabby because I saw her speak once and she seemed nice. That is the only reason I support her. Makes no sense either. :)

Of course I am stuck in Hayworth Hell so you know...my support means less then Tim's.2/17/2006 12:45:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well, maybe you should try and hear some of the other candidates before forming your baised view on how "nice" someone is. I heard there are plenty of "Nice" people out there and I think most of the candidates in the CD-8 race are nice. Maybe you should be a little more open minded before you support someone that maybe nice but a poor choice. Life experience far out weighs her shoty voting record.2/17/2006 06:28:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It's not a "shoty" record. She's the only one with a record and it obviously makes sense to look at it. Keep in mind who she had to work within the legislature. She did a great job for her constituents.2/17/2006 07:45:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Elizabeth--

It makes perfect sense. The first step in supporting a candidate is thinking a candidate is "nice"-- that is, decent, fair, trustworthy--otherwise someone will never support that candidate. [Ideally, the next step should be checking out that candidate's issue stances/values to see you agree with the candidate's on your major issues.]

ANONYMOUS-RIGHT-AFTER ELIZABETH--If you want someone to support your candidate, you better lay off the vitriol. That kind of tone is never going to win someone over to your candidate and, in fact, is likely to bias someone against your candidate. People are NOT attracted to a candidate/campaign they view as nasty. You say that Giffords has a "shoty" record, which is a meaningless criticism since you provide no backup--no specifics.

Elizabeth--
J.D. is a piece of work. I'm amazed at how many pieces of work Arizona also has in the state house.2/17/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Great points CC Burro...I am not sure that we are supporting the same candidate right now, but I get the feeling that we will be in November (smile). I would also say to my new "penpal" that I will never tell or say a word if you vote for Gabby in the primary (grin). No one will ever know who you vote for when you go into that booth or send in that ballot by mail (smile).

Yeah I love the so called arguments being made against Giffords. I have, over and over and over again given places a person can go to get a sense of who Gabrielle Giffords is and why she is a great candidate. Some are trying to sway support to Weiss or Latas by arguing that she has no record and that she is a Democrat in name only. It is buffoonery to think that these baseless arguments are going to soften her support. I keep saying that her support is broad, and it is not campaign speak, I assure you.

The hope here must be that "nay-sayers" hope that those who do not know Giffords will be swayed by it. All I can say is good luck...and that it is making some of us work harder, write checks, and raise more funds.

Roger2/17/2006 10:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well, Anonymous, the time I met Gabby was at a small dinner put on by the Democratic Women of Arizona club. She did not have to be there and I do not remember seeing any other people in the CD8 race there or at other events like that.

I can support whoever I want to and it does not matter, *I* am not in CD8.2/17/2006 06:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|KRALMAJALES--

[laughter]. Nah. I'm very happy with the candidate that I'm already supporting--Jeff Latas.

On a different, related subject--Any idea why the Tucson newspapers didn't cover the DFA forum? Is CJ Karamargin all they have to cover all of politics? Just one reporter?2/17/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahahaha...CC Burro...we would love to have someone as intelligent as you are as a Gabby supporter. I am going to keep on working on you...and I swear...I won't tell a soul if you vote for her (grin).

Now to your point, I was wondering the same thing. I did not see coverage of the DFA or the very first event in Patagonia or even the campaign kickoff of
Gabrielle Giffords (there was some coverage of Weiss' kickoff speech I think). The Giffords event outperformed expectations...had a large crowd...and a very diverse set of supporter from the far far left to the center. I wondered if there was an "insider" media bias in favor of Patty...but that would be a a conspiratorial slamm and a denigration of the work of our journalists.

Roger2/18/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Stevem|W|P|There is "conspiracy" on behalf of Patty Weiss. The Star simply doesn't cover political news - or the Legislature - or neighborhood events - or anything of note in Tucson.
For example, Rep. Phil Lopes has taken on universal health care with virtually no notice from his hometown paper. He also stood up to the Republicans for freezing citizens out of legislative committee hearings. It was in every newspaper in the state, including the Citizen. But not the Star. See today's AZCentral for some news.2/19/2006 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Nice plug, but I have one question WHAT RECORD? What has she DONE? The only thing she has a good claim to is the ability to raise money. Not win against a well-funded Republican.2/20/2006 07:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.2/22/2006 01:58:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"You anti-DLCers got a problem with Bill and Hill??"

YES!!! And if you DON'T have a problem with them, you aren't paying attention.

Have you checked out Hill's votes lately?

Well, to Bill's credit, he was the best Republican president we have had in the last 30 years.

And by the way, the DLC still is the Clinton org and they are still pulling the strings. If you believe in citizens' power, than you can't support the Clintons.

Just based on these comments I think I will support Weiss. There seems to be a big void of intellectual capital in this Party that she could provide.

I will support Giffords if she gets the nomination. I have supported her all these years in LD28. I have to say though, I have been so disappointed in her at her speaking engagements. She didn't give one good answer that showed she understood the issues at the DFA forum, everything to her is 'complex', and in speaking to her personally she comes across average in every way: average intelligence, average depth, average human understanding, average integrity. I expected that someone who served in the house and senate would be a lot more knowledgeable and confident in her positions. I get a distinct Kerry feeling about her.

I will take average over what the Republicans have to offer, but I would rather aim for someone a little more exceptional in all regards.

Of course there is always Raytheon Rodriguez for the pretend Democrats who try to justify that one.2/22/2006 02:05:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Roger, I don't think there is a bias because I certainly haven't heard anything about Weiss's campaign. I think it is more that reporters here don't cover politics in general and if Patty does get anything it is all about being a former newscaster which I doubt voters care about one way or another.

Latas is the only one getting coverage and it is probably because he is running a smart campaign and getting a lot of internet support which pushes the attention up to the mainstream media. Weiss and Giffords could learn a lot from the Latas campaign. He also has some really well respected activists supporting him which is something that brings in even more support.

I don't think I will vote for Latas because he seems too limited but I do give him a lot of credit for being out there and running a good campaign. If he would have chosen to start out in a state campaign and prove himself first since he neither has Gabby's experience or Weiss's community leadership I think he could have easily won any state office he chose.2/22/2006 02:17:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"Elizabeth Rogers said..."

Loved your comment about the 'nice' thing! You are being honest. I suspect most people support a candidate and it has nothing to do with their background or even positions but just a gut instinctive "I like them or I don't."

I am just surprised anyone can support any candidate this early because I have talked to 5 of the candidates in length, researched what I could find on them, and still feel like I don't know any of the candidates well enough to throw support behind them.

I like Latas's charisma and campaign strategy but don't think his talk matches his walk so I don't think I can get behind him. I like Weiss's life experience, intelligence and community involvement but I think she actually might be a little too brainy for our CD8 voters (sorry to insult us all) and would like to see her sound less 'nice' as another blogger said. Gabby I have issues with on some of her votes which I plan to research in full for the past 2 years, but I also think she has the money, endorsements, and the shallowest of all reasons...she is really cute! So, I think it is down to Weiss and Giffords for me but still way to early to tell and Latas might change my mind.2/22/2006 08:07:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|LAST ANONYMOUS--How do you think Latas' walk doesn't match his talk? That comment is surprising to me because his honesty AND integrity is one of the main reasons I like him.2/24/2006 07:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Two anonymous' back,

You make excellent points. I also think if Latas had come at this with more experience and if he had a base that he would be doing better than he is now. I also agree that he has something the other candidates could learn from. I just don't think it is his time...for THIS office. I also hope the other candidates are watching because the only thing I see in Gabby that is a weakness is that she does not yet appear "tough" (needs to fight back a little more with some gravitas) and that she is so intelligent on some issues that she appears "wishy washy" at times... So at some point someone will ask "what do you believe in?" "What will you really fight for?" I know she has it is in her, but it is something to work on now.

Weiss...I am just disappointed that she ran. One is because I know she is going to give my favorite a race (smile) due to name recognition. But I also don't see the substance, I don't see the experience, and whenever I bring her up to others I hear about temperament issues that really worry me. From what I have heard, I worry about how she will appear when attacked.2/15/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I have been very critical about the legislature's lack of support for higher education. It looks like Russell Pearce is finally doing something about it. Pearce's bill, HB 2583, would mandate the display of Old Glory in all college classrooms in Arizona. HB 2583 passed a house committee yesterday. Good to see that Pearce and the House's Universities, Community Colleges and Technology Committee isn't distracted by such side issues as the lack of availability of lower division classes, the difficulties in obtaining financial aid or losing qualified instructors due to low pay. Darnit, we'll have flags! NB - Why no money here? Isn't that an unfunded mandate? Maybe a tax credit would take care of that. Why are private and parochial schools excluded from our laws requiring the display of the flag in primary and secondary school classrooms? This lack of patriotism has to stop or our state's private and parochial schools will be graduating terrorists, anarchists and maybe even cubists. No word yet on whether Ron Gould wants to require the display of the Confederate Battle Flag. Or require silly mustaches.|W|P|114001530761010828|W|P|Now, That's Some Action|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/15/2006 03:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have no problem with the symbol of our nation being displayed. It is quite motivational as I teach about civil rights and liberties in my classroom.

That said, Ted is right on. Our universities have faced enormous cuts over the years, which has necessitated tuition raises, cutting of classes, the hiring of adjuncts in replace of full-time faculty, and lack of raises for hard working employees.

How about if some wonderful business leader donated the flags? Then the money that would have been appropriated to buy them could then go to our university scholarship fund.2/15/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What a great idea, kralmajales! I'm sure Pearce could get someone to do that. After all, isn't he the one who found some Phoenix businessman to repair the flagpole at the Capitol?2/15/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.2/15/2006 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|I attended K-12 in Texas before I moved to AZ.
The American and Texas flag were displayed in every single classroom from K-12. Even some of the classrooms at the local colleges and universities had flags in the rooms.
So it isn't weird to think of seeing the US and AZ flag in the classroom

However, this should not be forced down the School Districts under a state mandate, unfunded at that.

I wonder what fine small print the gop snuck in the bill that will cause the Governor to Veto it and then they spin it against her saying she’s unpatriotic?

The gop never stops making my jaw drop.

Erik2/16/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Pearce constantly makes a big stink about saving the taxpayers money. How does this legislation do that?

While it is a nice idea, money that buys flags for every classroom would be better spent tutoring lagging children or buying more textbooks.2/16/2006 12:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Talk about putting a bandaid on your elbow as a plan to cure cancer.2/17/2006 05:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|Bulk purchases of Made-in-The-People's-Republic-of-China cheap cotton Old Glories, anyone? Or maybe Pakistani sweatshops can provide a better deal.2/17/2006 06:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|The legislation requires that the flags are "manufactured" in the U.S.--God forbid they come from the same Mexican factory that manufactured those border guard uniforms!!! Renzi will shit again!2/13/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I can't believe I have more to write about this. Phx Kid accused me of a low blow when I remarked on the Vice-President's accidental shooting of his friend. There are two things I'd like to point out here: one, there are a great many people joking about this incident, including conservative bloggers. Phx Kid's implication is that only us gulderned liberals find this sort of thing funny, and it just isn't the case. Two, he says that it is in poor taste to make fun of a man who got injured. Point taken, but I was making fun of the Vice-President. Originally, I thought that Harry Whittington was only "peppered" by shells, which would not be a serious injury. However, I come to find out that the man spent some considerable time in an ICU. Even a 78 year old man doesn't have to spend time in an ICU for getting "peppered." So, why would I underplay his injuries? Because the Vice-President's spokespeople told us that the injury was mild. Silly me for believing them. That is what galls me here. The first impulse of the Vice-President was to cover up the incident. When word got out, he had his friend, a Republican fundraiser named Katherine Armstrong who was parked in a car nearby, blame Whittington. Then, Mary Matalin got into the act, claiming all sorts of things on behalf of Cheney. Trouble was, Matalin wasn't even in the same time zone as the Vice President when this incident went down. As I have previously stated, Cheney screwed up, as he would say, big time here, and it almost cost him the life of his friend. Instead of owning up to it, which would have earned him a little respect of even a partisan jackass like me, his instincts called for cover-up and preverication. I'm sure that one can understand why people like me find this unsuprising and emblematic of the problems in Republican-controlled Washington. I showed the initial white washed account of this to my father, who is a lifelong hunter, a retired Air Force survival trainer and someone totally disinterested in political spin. He found even the benign initial accounts of the event to be an example of unsafe hunting. Accounts I've read from other experienced hunters seem to agree with this him. Phx Kid, I'm actually glad you post on here, so keep up the responses. I don't like how quick you jumped on Kennedy. I mean, that was 35 years ago, when attitudes toward drunk driving were very different then now. Ted Kennedy was extremely irresponsible then, and it resulted in the death of a young woman. But, please, don't use that as an excuse for Cheney to get out of this one. Gawd, what excuse will you guys use when you can't poke fun at Kennedy anymore? I'm not looking to hound Cheney out of office for this particular thing (the near death of one man pales in comparison to, I dunno, death of 2400 servicemen and injury of ten thousand more), but I am just looking for him to take a bit of responsibility.|W|P|113987750492175518|W|P|Vice President Fudd|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/13/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Hey, can you guys keep talking about this right on through November 7th. You are so off message it’s not funny.

I know you are enjoying this but remember Cheney will probably never again run for elected office. (Not because of what happened this weekend but because of his age.) In the time that you have spent blogging about the VP, Kyl has probably raised another $100,000. Yeah, I know Pederson has all this money. Well he is going to need it because who would give money to a guy worth SEVERAL million. Let him pay for it and pay for it he will. Last I heard Kyl had about 6 million. But please keep talking about Cheney!

Yeah, I’ll admit it, tedski’s comments were not as bad as many others, even conservative blogs. But it is fun to get Democrats defending Ted Kennedy driving habits in 1969 and you guys walked right into it.

Question: Do you think this is the year that you will get at least one Democrat on the Corporation Commission or will Republicans do a clean sweep again?

See you tomorrow at the Len Munsil kick-off, 8:00 AM in Tucson!2/13/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Phx Kid, this ALSO might surprise such a sharp fella as yourself...but most of us can concentrate on more then one topic at a time...which is why I was able to do my job and find out the Veep was illegally hunting!

Shocking to hear I know.2/14/2006 08:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Man I am tempted to give money to Len Munsil just to give him an even better opportunity of winning the primary. That, however, would leave me disgusted.

His Center for Arizona Policy is a fairly powerful interest group only because he has a set of like minded cronies in our state legislature that enjoy the extreme and unreasonable policies coming out of that group. They are policies that few independents and moderates in Arizona would support. If you nominate him, get ready for the words "out of the mainstream" and "too extreme for Arizona." Over and over and over.

If Munsil wins the nomination, the Governor has the perfect foil for the 2006 election. I would imagine that even Jon Kyl would distance himself a bit.

So ya'll just get yourselves down to the Munsil Kickoff.2/14/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|By the way...take a gander at this and also get a sense of just who Munsil has been associated with over the past years.

Believe me I have nothing against religion at all...but if you want your state government and its policy laced with it, then by all means, vote Munsil.

http://www.azpolicy.org2/14/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Go ahead, call him "out of the mainstream" and "too extreme.” It worked so well against Alito I am not suppressed that you are going to drag out such tired and shop worn phrases.

Speaking of the Governor, do you think she will sign HB2254, the fetal pain bill? If she vetoes the bill does that mean she supports fetal pain? How will this play in rural Arizona? Does the Governor want unborn babies treated worse than stray dogs? The mere discussion of fetal pain is not going to play well for the Governor.2/14/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Just to give a sense to moderate, even libertarian voters, of where Len Munsil stands on issues of today. Here goes:

One column entitled a "Christian Response to Homosexuality"
http://www.azconservative.org/Munsil3.htm

A second column that bashes libertarians and even the Goldwater Institute for supporting liberals.
http://www.azconservative.org/Munsil2.htm

I will give the greatest of credit to Len Munsil if he keeps this views and attitudes throughout the campaign and into the general election.

Last, none of this is to call him "evil" or folks that believe in him (and like him) to be "evil". In fact, his column on "homosexuality" tends to take great care in saying that there is other types of sin out there that is just as bad...and I don't want to be a sinner that is legislated against.

We can agree to disagree, but I will not support him and I will do what little I can to spread the word about who the people of Arizona would be electing to make our laws.

Roger2/14/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|On the Hunting accident...

I just read a story in the Washington Post that suggests that the condition of Mr. Willington is much more serious than presumed (with buckshot lodged in his heart). This is serious, of course, and I hope he recovers.

The question I have is this: to what extent are hunting accidents such as this prosecuted in courts of law around the states. There is, of course, civil negligence to be thought of here, but honestly, there are felonies and misdemeanors that cover these types of actions...and I strongly bet that these types of accidents are indeed prosecuted when great care is not taken to prevent harm when legally using firearms.

Our attorney friends????

Best,

Roger2/14/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|kralmajales,

It's interesting you should point out that Munsil article attacking the Goldwater Institute. In an interview with Munsil on Espresso Pundit, Munsil praises the Institute and says he has even financially supported it.

Hmm....

P.S. Check out azcentral.com for a blog by columnist Richard Ruelas. He was apparently standing right in front of Munsil when he wasn't doing anything in particular, but Munsil wouldn't even talk to Ruelas. And yet, the Espresso Pundit gets lunch and an interview.

Interesting.2/14/2006 07:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous tumanick|W|P|I was preparing to teach an Elder Hostel class in the room next to where this Munster person was getting ready to do whatever it is he did and saw all the posters and stickers, so I put on my GIFFORDS FOR CONGRESS badge and stood in the doorway. Got a few glances from the suits but then the candidate himself, obvious by his perfect teeth and shaved-head ear-wired bodyguard, started to enter the room. "Wrong room, buddy" sez I and he smiled off in another direction. He paused, turned, pointed, smiled and said 'GIFFORDS!" and then continued.

Hats off to him, he can read!2/14/2006 08:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...I am sure that Munsil has suported the Goldwater Institute...and that he will go out of his way to do so now. I also hope that they remember his criticism for libertarians who have an interest in social freedom along with economic freedom. It (social freedom) is something that Munsil clearly DOES NOT support. Read his work...his paper trail...and his littany of "good" works at the Center for Arizona Policy.

I hope he just continues to show what he really believes...I sure will do what I can to remind him...because I also hope (and really believe) that most Americans think he is wrong.2/15/2006 09:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I still do not think that the Cheney incident is something to make jokes out of but clearly this is open to public comment and tedski and everyone else are free to write about it.

Personally, as I read more it is just very sad. I have been dove and quail hunting most of my life and was initially defensive when the news first came out on this. I must admit that the rules are very clear when you go into the field, know your target and beyond. When you pull the trigger you are responsible for where the shot goes, period.

I was not in Texas last weekend so I cannot comment on the specifics of this case but I think my comment above pretty much covers it. I do not think this is a political issue or of any benefits to the Democrats but it is also not good for the VP.2/15/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, in politics nowadays everything is open.

Perhaps at one point it was not, I have only be around for 26 (soon to be 27) years but I have watched as Americans, with the help of people like Newt, Karl and Lee start, to talk about every little thing a politician does if it negative.

If the rumours about Bush 41 were true and he did have an affair, no one talked about it on our side but the last Democratic President was accused of everything from murdering more then one close friend to raping a woman to the point of biting through her lip. There were even videos sold about this.

Now our talking about the Veep illegally hunting and accidently shooting one of his hunting partners is no where near that. For one thing, it actually is true. For another, it is pertinant because it is one more example of a White House that considers itself above having to explain anything to us "little people."

Also the Dems have no need to formulate a message yet. We still have six months to work on it and then shock all you Republicans with it. *smirk*2/15/2006 04:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well, it's no wonder you lost to JD with that lazy attitude (and smirk).2/15/2006 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Sure Anonymous. *rolls eyes*2/17/2006 07:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I have perused a bunch of the issue fact sheets at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) website. Quite an eye-opener. These CAP people probably say that they "hate the sin but not the sinner". Well, you should see their fact sheets on homosexuality, which reek of, well, hatred. Instead of going after gay people, this group should apply their passion towards eradicating lying [Satan's foremost attribute?]politicians.

Have any of you heard ANY fact- and logic-based argument as to how gay marriage "hurts" the institution of marriage?2/18/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|CC Burro:

No I haven't heard a rational argument as to why the government should stick its nose into the lives of people who are our neighbors. Republicans who read this...is this your idea of limited government? I have never heard how it would harm the institution of marriage at all. In fact, I question how many Republicans are really against gay marriage or civil unions...I think they just like it because it is another "evil to fight" that might bring out voters.

Last, what burns me up is that even if marriage was extended to LGBT couples, it would not take away the ability for people to discriminate. Those of you who are most afraid of gay marriage, guess what? YOUR church does not have to perform them! Other churches will...and why should you care?

OK...now a challenge to the Democrats. Where are you all at on this one? I mean...I see the Arizona Together campaign fighting hard to stop the Amendment, but the party appears to be hiding away scared (as usual). It is something that is not mentioned in candidate speeches, as issues on candidate pages, etc. Republicans have the guts to say they are against it...like they do on a lot of issues that I disagree with.

Roger2/18/2006 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales--

Jeff Latas HAS taken a strong stand on this issue in writing [go to his website, Issues, then Civil Rights, 2nd paragraph].

"Further, I am against discrimination based on gender, sexual preference, or sexual identity. I oppose any amendment to the constitution defining marriage. I believe that if the government chooses to recognize and reward unions between two people for tax or survivorship benefits, it should do so regardless of the gender of the two people involved."

This is one of the many reasons I support him.

[Under the "Issues" sections of the websites for Weiss, Giffords, Rodriguez, and Schacter, I found nothing on gay rights--however, presently there isn't a lot of stuff in these issues sections. I expect that these candidates will add meat/specificity over time.]2/20/2006 01:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|If I could spell this correctly and put the little accent mark on it, I would.

So here goes...

Touche!!!!

(smile)...best to you CC Burro.

Roger2/12/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|If that's the way he treats his friends, what chance do the rest of us have?|W|P|113978966645079695|W|P|Nice Shooting, Mr. Vice-President|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/12/2006 06:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Low blow Tedski. A lot of Democrats as well as Republicans go hunting. I have been a quail hunter since my teen years and think this is not a good time for cheap political shots.

Wait until some liberal falls off of a ladder, gets in a car accident, or makes a mistake. Or maybe someday you may not be perfect and make a mistake that you feel bad about. Would you want your enemies turning it into a joke?2/12/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Well wait Phoenix Kid! Now this is a bipartisan issue since two Vice-Presidents have shot people while in office. Aaron Burr and Dickie Cheney.2/12/2006 08:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Who ever said I made fun of Cheney for hunting? I've been hunting, and my father is a hunter.2/12/2006 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To phx kid--

I don't think Tedski meant any low blow by this. And I'm sure if Cheney's friend had been maimed for life or died that Tedski would not have written thusly about this event.2/12/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Phx Kid,
This might surprise you but in politics, people sometimes insult the other guy. I seem to remember some Republican guy who is in a very high office saying to a Democrat guy also in a very high office to "Go bleep himself." This was on the United States Senate floor when both are in high office and presumably capable of being civil to one another.

Ted simply stated that Cheney did something not nice to a friend since the guy was shot by the Veep.2/12/2006 10:14:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wow. Cheney is still alive?2/13/2006 12:36:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Hey phx kid -

If somebody died or was seriously injured, it's fodder for a grand jury, or at least a coroner's inquest.

Nobody died? It's fodder for every comedian or person with even a bit of a sense of humor.

Also, you wrote "Wait until some liberal ...makes a mistake. Or maybe someday you may not be perfect and make a mistake that you feel bad about. Would you want your enemies turning it into a joke?"

See cross-references: Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton.2/13/2006 06:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Okay guys, here is the deal, an attorney named Harry Whittington, was "peppered", shot from such a distance that the shotgun "spray" is diffuse and without a great deal of force. Yeah, you often need to be hospitalized for such a thing, but it isn't lethal. I understand that Cheney was very apologetic for this.

The current story is that Mr. Whittington went into an area behind Mr. Cheney, and frightened a covey. The quail flew out, Cheney turned and fired. Whittington apparently did not signal to Cheney about his location or intentions.

If the current story is true, then Whittington was not being careful, if it isn't true, Cheney was being an irresponsible hunter. In either case, such things are usually investigated by local officials. I haven't heard of that happening here; anybody wonder why?

And this is the thing that galls me a bit. It sounds to me that Phx Kid is a responsible hunter, or at least supports responsible hunting and responsible gun ownership. Despite this being an accident, indications are that someone messed up, and it could have been tragic.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is becoming more common. I have talked to a lot of people in our rural communities who tell the same story, they don't take their kids out hunting anymore because too many "city people" are coming out and behaving irresponsibly.

Phx Kid, Cheney is a big boy now. He's been playing this game almost as long as I've been alive. Cheap shot or no, I think he's getting far worse from other folks. He'll do okay.2/13/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Tumanick|W|P|Congratulations to the Veep for shortcutting McCain-Feingold on campaign donors, but the questions remains: did he give too much or too little? And, was this a warning or just the result of poor marksmanship? It does point out the value of military training and I shall be glad to offer my services to the VP, provided he doesn't have better things to do.2/13/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“Cheney was being … irresponsible … In either case, such things are usually investigated by local officials. I haven't heard of that happening here; anybody wonder why?”

I wonder why Ted Kennedy got away with manslaughter in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Talk about irresponsible.2/13/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I knew it! I just knew it!

The moment I read phx kid's first post, I said to myself, "I bet this hypocrite takes a Chappaquidick shot every chance he gets."

And there it is. Way to show your true colors, kid.2/13/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous gail|W|P|phx kid,

Are you deliberately missing the point. Kennedy's accident was reported extensively in the press. It was investigated by police. A long legal process ensued.

Cheney, unlike Kennedy, is lucky his victim was not killed. The larger concern is there appears to be no investigation into the incident. If you accidently shot your hunting partner don't you think there would be an investigation to ensure it was an accident and to determine who was responsible? If Cheney were a Democratic VP there would be a huge hue and cry to have an special prosecutor and an impeachment. But Republican are outside the law, are they not?

Why do you defend someone who blames his mistake on the victim? It is the one shooting who is required make sure he has a clear field of fire. It sounds like Cheney swung around and didn't look. It sounds like the person who he shot was BEHIND him. I know Republicans live in a fantasy world, but really, to blame someone behind you for being shot when you swung around and shot without looking is even stretching it even for a Republican.

An investigation would clear up some of the questions. An apparent attempt to hide the shooting and then the automatic blaming of the victim just raises more questions.2/13/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I did not think of Chappaquidick until I read tedski’s comment about “being … irresponsible” and his words about local officials being responsible for investigating.

I am not afraid to show my true colors. The truth still stands: Dick Cheney shotgun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car.

Please explain why I am a hypocrite?2/13/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|So now Scott McClellan has confirmed that Cheney's detail would not let the local county sheriff's investigate - it was on the daily presser - talk about "irresponsible!"2/13/2006 11:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid is being a typical Republican. Apparently, if Ted gives the Veep the benefit of the doubt (which he did) that means that Ted automatically is defending all liberals from anything they have ever done.
'"In either case, such things are usually investigated by local officials. I haven't heard of that happening here; anybody wonder why?”

I wonder why Ted Kennedy got away with manslaughter in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Talk about irresponsible.'

As for that last bit, if you cannot find the 125,000 books/websites/papers on the Kopechne case, including the public police records, then you need to learn how to google or at least visit a library.

You also need to read the then current driving laws and see why he was charged with what he was charged with.2/13/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The new NRA slogan -

Guns don't shoot people, Vice President's shoot people!2/13/2006 07:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|To Elizabeth Rogers:

In re: to phx kid's responses or the lack there of. Are we really surprised? Phx kid is just following the same line, just like John E. When questioned, avoid and change the subject.2/13/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|TucsonMark...you are right of course. Today at work I did figure out what would be a good example of a low blow: equating someone who has given three limbs in service to this country to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Making fun of a guy who shot someone when he should not have even been hunting is not a low blow. It is Ted's duty as a blogger.2/15/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Futs|W|P|Did anyone watch the Bachelor on Monday? Travis is HOT!2/10/2006 06:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My poor brother had to suffer from too many minutes sitting next to Russell Pearce today. Don't worry, he was given some pills and he will be okay. For those that missed it, he debated Rep. Pearce today's Lou Dobbs Tonight on the issue of the National Guard on the border. It will be repeated a couple of times. My brother was arguing for Napolitano's limited plan (which I wouldn't have voted for) and Pierce was arguing his regular, well founded, sensible border plan, with such evidence as this:
Arizona's No. 1 in crime. You know, the illegal aliens kill more people on an annual basis than we probably lost in the Iraq war to date in the United States. It's enough is enough.
Where do we start on that one? The last year I could find statistics for was 2004, when there were 486 homicides. I don't have a breakdown by who was killed by illegal aliens and who by upstanding American citizens, but this stat alone puts a lie to Pierce's numbers. There has been an increase in homicides in recent years, but many experts, you know people who have an actual background in law enforcement, believe that the recent spike is more due to the use of methamphetamine, a home grown drug, by the way. Some guy who couldn't run the DMV knows better though. Besides, I thought these guys were coming up to sponge off welfare, or maybe take our jobs...I can't remember which. Unfortunately, such "factoids" are common for Pierce, then regurgitated by the media. Another of Pierce's "factoids" is that 80% of state inmates are aliens. Turns out it is 12%. The intereview was rushed so Tom didn't feel like he could call him on the phony murder stat, and I couldn't expect Dobbs to refute it, given he suggested the Mexican Army was ready to invade. What the hell are you talking about, Lou?|W|P|113962432602051327|W|P|Lou Dobbs Tonight|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/13/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Check your Pearce vs Pierce spellings.2/13/2006 12:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez...I did that again? I get him confused with former New England Revolution player Rusty Pierce...easy to do, they look a lot alike.2/10/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In a move that blindsided even a self-appointed (self-styled? self-delusional?) political expert like me, Tim Sultan, who ran in the 2002 CD 8 primary, endorsed Patty Weiss today. Sultan was an intern for Dennis DeConcini, and worked on the staff of Nancy Pelosi and a short stint with Janet Napolitano. The move suprised me, because I have had conversations with Sultan where he said that he wasn't interested in running against Gabrielle Giffords, who he said was a friend. He even attended her announcement a few weeks back. I guess what he meant was: "I'm not interested in running against her because I'd rather endorse her opponent."|W|P|113961457425324383|W|P|"The World Is Beautiful Vase Filled With Scorpions"|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/10/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|um, excuse me ... Miss Giffords? There seems to be some sharp object sticking out of your back.2/10/2006 04:52:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|DOOOOOODE!!!!

I JUST SAW YOUR BROTHER ON CNN ON LOU DOBBS!

wtf???/why didn't you put some info about that on your site. i just caught the last bit. your bro was saying something about the border being a fed. problem, and that bush didn't alot enough money for it...then dobbs cut off the other guy and they went to wolf.

James2/10/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|James-

I wrote about it two days ago...pay attention!

:)2/10/2006 05:29:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Maybe Tim had the opportunity to meet Patty, get to learn her depth on the issues and realize the fact that Weiss is a true progressive.

At least the Weiss' campaign is chaired by Democrats -- the life-long variety.2/10/2006 06:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wow...Tim moves from one woman to another...typical Tim!2/10/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Where did you see this endorsement? What was Sultan's reason for endorsing Patty Weiss?2/10/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I don't understand why you've got a thing against the Weiss candidacy.
You can support whomever you want, but come up with a better reason than "Patty has no experience." Revere's column was totally lame. If he thinks journalism isn't a public service then the dumb-ass is doing it wrong. He should go back to J-school and spare us his scribbling.
In normal, non-primary voter circles, not being an "experienced" candidate a GOOD thing. It means the person isn't a political hack.
You want to WIN, don't you?
Why stay behind someone who's virtually unknown compared to that overt racist who'll probably get the GOP nod?
There are bigger issues at stake than the petty party squabbles in Tucson. I say get with it and get behind the candidate who's almost a shoe in in the general.2/10/2006 10:51:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Big Deal. Tim Sultan - canned by the governor and now unemployed. I bet Patty offered him a J.O.B.2/11/2006 06:36:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Job? That's what I heard. He shopped other campaigns to no avail.2/11/2006 09:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I want to offer something about what the third "anon" up says. I will not denigrate Patty Weiss as a journalist, but it is hard, very hard, to wave aside Giffords' experience, knowlege of issues, and knowledge of politics. THIS is what is bringing her the support that she has that other candidates are feverishly trying to soften. What bothers me about Weiss is that she is a relative unknown quantity. People know what she did as a generalist, but not her ideas on politics, and she has not record to stand upon at all. People can attack Giffords record, yes, but she has one. I wholeheartedly suggest that some take a look at the record and her past endorsement from groups on the left and those in the middle. Those who know Giffords' record seem to support her, plain and simple.

Another suggestion I would like to counter is that Weiss is a better candidate and that Giffords would not be able to beat Graf (or Huffman or Hellon). I see absolutely no evidence of this except for an early poll based on name rec. Giffords has already rallied opinion leaders in Tucson to her cause...those who Democrats regularly elect. She also brings in moderates and even those who might be moderate Republican. I think any of our candidates could ably beat Graf. I just want the best public servant.

Last, I hear suggestions from some that Giffords is an "insider" and is not liberal enough for those in the party who want change. I would give a word of warning to anyone who is underestimating her support among some liberal opinion makers in this town. I run in a lot of different circles and am not a party insider...I have seen opinion leaders on the left (PCIC members, anti-death penalty advocates) who are supporting Giffords, have given her money, and are even raising money for her.

Cheers!

Roger2/11/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Please pardon the typos (smile)...I really really need my coffee.2/12/2006 01:36:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Roger and the other Tucsonan’s who can’t see outside the Ole Pueblo:

Do you realize how much larger the CD8 Universe is besides Tucson? That is so arrogant of all these Tucsonan’s gloating about TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON!

Hello folks…that attitude is no different then the attitude from Phoenix has on Tucson. Phoenix looks down on Tucson as something insignificant.

Now Tucson looks down towards Wilcox, Benson, Douglas, Oro Valley, Green Valley, Marana, and Sierra Vista as if they really don’t matter. Gabby isn’t known outside of LD28/Tucson Metro, and if she is known outside of Tucson, they probably don’t view the problems we are facing the same way Gabby does..

Let’s review the map kids. This isn’t a race ONLY IN Tucson.2/12/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Easy now Anonymous, but excellent points!

Let me apologize if you thought that I was casting any ill will or ignorance toward the HUGE part of the district that is outside of Tucson. When I bring up that Giffords is strong it Tucson, it is because, well, she is, not because I think that is enough and all that she has to do to win. In fact, on a different blog I note Weiss' apparent strategy to campaign hard in the rest of the district because Giffords is strong here. Giffords is strong here because she represented a piece of it in the legislature. She now has to campaign everywhere else and let you all see her commitment to the district.

I would also say that just because other candidates are well known (from TV?) in the largest part of the district does not mean that they would be a better representative.

Last, check out www.giffordsforcongress.com to see those leaders in your part of the CD8 that have endorsed her. I think you will be surprised.

Last again (grin), you are VERY right that this will not be only a Tucson race alone (although most of the population of voters are in in this county). If any "arm chair" strategist here (like me) wants to get a sense of where the race is for Weiss, take a good look at her website www.pattyweiss.com. Most of her events are outside of Tucson. Something for the Giffords, Latas, and Rodriguez campaigns to consider.

Best to you!

Roger2/12/2006 04:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|FYI: Willcox has two LL's not one.

BF2/12/2006 09:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To Tedski--

Please help me out here--Where did you see this endorsement? Also, what is the importance of an endorsement by Tim Sultan? Does he have any following in CD 8?2/12/2006 09:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Is Tim Sultan really a heavy hitter? Why would anyone want HIS endorsement anyways? He’s just a self-serving punk who’s looking to see and be seen and in the end feel important.

If someone like Bacal can defeat him in a election, well maybe he isn’t that big of a deal.2/12/2006 10:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Roger,

You may wish to talk about who's been working outside Tucson, you may be suprised to see the Latas' working Cochise Co. pretty hard.

They just can't get the press the celebs have gotten. This will change by and by.2/13/2006 06:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The Tim Sultan endorsement was a press release from the Weiss campaign.2/13/2006 07:27:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Thanks.2/13/2006 08:07:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|This pro-Giffords website is so pathetic - you all think anyone who goes against your more conservative candidate does not know what they are talking about. Patty is going to win and Tim is smart for getting in her good graces now. BTW, Tim was not canned he left the Governor's office for a higher paying job - please forgive him for wanting to earn a living for once in his life!

Even the Eva Bacal supporter told you she is going to support Patty now that her candidate has dropped out. Wake up and smell the beans it's Patty in '06!2/13/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Re: Latas working Chocise County.

Latas works for Jet Blue at least half of each month and is on the road.

I can't imagine he isn't working any county really hard.2/13/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Again...if Patty wins, you can bet hell and high water that I will support her in the general. I will not support her in the primary, though, and I hope that Giffords wins.

One more thing, anyone trying to paint Giffords as a conservative, as anonymous did, had better look very closely at her support and to her record of endorsements. She gets endorsements of liberal organizations...and high ratings among them. What must be bothering some is that she also gets some endorsements and high ratings from groups that are more moderate. What this sounds like to me is a balanced canidate with balanced support.2/13/2006 10:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Might sound good to you but it smells pretty fishy to me.

By the way, Latas is seen more on the campaign trail than just about anyone else, even Cochise Co.2/15/2006 10:06:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous A_RO_OR_BUST|W|P|Well, Neal Rocklin supports Alex Ro -- and no other candidate can claim that fact, YO! Alex even has the entire clip of the show on his website! Dude, listening to answer so sincerely to questions about his veteran past, I can't believe no one would not vote for him at all!

GO RO for '06!2/10/2006 05:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Earlier this week, Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom announced that he is leaving his office at the end of the month. Geez, Paul, you could have called me so I could have a scoop. Thanks, man. I first met Eckerstrom when I was in college, when he and Ramón Valadez approached the University Democrats to encourage more of us to become interns at local congressional offices. In all of the years since, Eckerstrom was supportive of Young Democrats organizations. Eckerstrom was not what you would call a timid Democrat. The press loved his tough talk against local Republicans. Occasionally, you could get him riled up and you would wonder if he needed to lay off the cafeine. But, during this last election cycle, it was great to have him there to respond to Republican attacks. At one point, Republican party chief called him "obnoxious." I think that Eckerstrom found that a compliment. C. T. Revere had a column yesterday where he implies that somehow Eckerstrom was forced out of office by supporters of other Democratic candidates who were angry about comments complimentary of Patty Weiss. Eckerstrom has said that Weiss is popular and electable and would be a formidable candidate. Even for a Giffords supporter like me, this is only stating the obvious. The comments were in a piece where Revere criticized Weiss's lack of experience. I agree with Revere's point on that one. Revere asked Eckerstrom for a comment, and he said complimentary things about Weiss's candidacy. Well, of course he did. What was expected, that he was going to trash Weiss? Revere hadn't quoted complimentary statements about other candidates because he hasn't asked Eckerstrom for comments about them. To imply that he was forced out by other candidates, particularly Gabrielle Giffords, is just ridiculous. The heat he took from Steve Farley's supporters after Eckerstrom had recruited Nina Trasoff was much worse. The supporters of Jeff Chimene and Eva Bacal gave him all sorts of grief for complimentary comments on rival candidate Tim Sultan. Chimene's supporters went so far as to force a showdown at a Party executive committee meeting over the incident. Whatever grief he has taken here is rather minor. I don't know if Revere thinks he is being helpful to Giffords here, but he is just playing into the story put out by Weiss supporters that Giffords is the candidate of those "part of the problem" insiders, and only Weiss can save us from them. Of course, this is silly. Giffords's people didn't demand Eckerstrom's head on a pike and use their insider voodoo to take him out of office. Of course its also silly because Weiss's campaign chair is consumate insider Tom Chandler, and has other muckety mucks pushing her candidacy. The other thing I find silly here is that Revere called Eckerstrom for a comment, then was critical that he gave one. Eh? So, what would Revere had said if he was critical of Weiss? What would Revere had said if Eckerstrom refused to comment? The man has never been shy telling me his opinion, but I haven't heard him say that he is for any of the candidates. I think the candidate he most vociferously supports is one running for Cochise County Clerk of the Court. NB - Revere quotes a bar owner in the article for comments he overheard Eckerstrom say. Geez, I shudder to think what the owners of the Surly Wench or Club Congress could quote me saying.|W|P|113957964248292929|W|P|Chairman Quits|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/10/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|There is nothing wrong with the party chair making a positive statement about one of the candidates. What is bad is if party leaders say/do things that make it obvious/public that they are supporting one Democrat or another in a primary race since this can increase party disunity--one of the DEMs biggest problems. It is unseemingly for the party leaders, including LD chairs, to show obvious public support for a primary candidate over another.2/10/2006 10:17:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I agree with the last commenter - after Weiss handily beats Giffords in the primary, hopefully they will come to her with open arms to help Weiss beat the Republican in the general.

Also, Paul is running for office and that is the real reason he stepped down as party chair....2/10/2006 10:23:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I hear that Paul dropped out to run for CD8. LOL.2/10/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|When the Republicans claim a Democratic officer is being obnoxious, then you know the person is doing their job right. Thanks Erkerstrom!2/10/2006 10:54:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Patty is going to fall on her face in the primary. She should go back to reading the news.2/12/2006 09:22:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Whoa! A few of the CD-8 candidate's supporters are getting quite nasty/petty towards each other. This posturing is all bullshit. You should be spending time helping your candidate become the best candidate possible to go up against the Republican primary winner. And if you think your candidate doesn't have much room for improvement, then you obviously did not see them in action at the last two forums. In war and Republican/Rovian politics, it is important to remember the Powell doctrine.2/09/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A new Rasmussen poll shows Janet Napolitano ahead of her opponents by ridiculous margins. Is there anything like a mercy rule in politics? Don Goldwater (still no supporters!) seems to do the best of the bunch, he only gets whupped 54% - 23%. Other candidates tested were John Greene (54% - 27%) and Jan Smith-Florez (55% - 36%). Interestingly, Len Munsil, who leads in fundraising was not tested. The poll was taken in mid-January, before the current bruhaha over English Language Learners was in full flower. Polling by local media outlets showed that at the very least, Napolitano was unhurt by the fracas, and the fight may have even helped her standing. Of course, the Republicans are still convinced that the people are on their side on this. The issue polls really well for them at Republican district clubs. I am still cautious about polls when I can't see any details (crosstabs are only available to Rasmussen clients). The only other detail given is that Napolitano's approval rating is at 65%, which is nearly unchanged over the past few months. Goldwater has the highest approval rating of the Republicans that were tested. This keeps up, I may end up feeling sorry for them.|W|P|113951861735648687|W|P|That Much? Naw, can't be.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/09/2006 02:10:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Here's my question. If she's got an approval rate of 65%, why are only 54% of those same people saying they'll vote for her.

Sounds like something's up there.2/09/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Pretty common phenomenom. Approval often doesn't match votes, and is usually a bit higher. People may approve of the job she does, but are waiting to see what the other candidates say before they make up their minds to vote for her. It is also possible that people approve of her and approve of a Republican that they want to vote for.

Or, it could be a nefarious plot pushed by commies and long hairs.2/09/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|January poll numbers are meaningless, as are any other poll numbers - except for the one in November. I hope the Governor wins re-election, but also hope that she (and her campaigners) don't get over-confident.

Having issued the pro-forma cautionary statement, I have to say that there's no reason for her not to kick some tail in November.

With her popularity, I wish she was running against Kyl, not Pederson, though.2/09/2006 05:02:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|What concerns me is that some Democrats will presume that Napolitano will win and don't realize that we have a ton of work to do in this state, including putting front and center a compelling, reality-based, cohesive progressive platform to attract voters. I think some Tucsonans forget that we live in a sea of red/purple.2/09/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|CC Burro:

You are right about that. And even if she did hold on to these margins, we need to get her some help in legislative races. If the GOP gets about three more seats in the legislature, it won't matter how many votes the governor gets, because they would be able to force their stuff through anyway.2/10/2006 01:13:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Lone Ranger|W|P|Just passing through.2/09/2006 06:12:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I can already tell I'm going to get flamed for this. Senator Ron Gould walked out of an interview with Phoenix station KNXV after the reporter questioned his flying of the Confederate battle flag at his home in Lake Havasu City. Gould gave the tired excuse that the flag is only being flown for historical reasons. The reporter, Steve Irvin, asked “As a white male, what gives you the right to judge what’s offensive to a Black person?” Gould stormed out. I used to buy the historical argument about the Confederate battle flag. You know, that this is all about Southern Heritage, et cetera. I bought it until I turned on CNN one day to see a story on white supremacists in of all places, Saskatchewan. Sure enough, there was a guy with a Confederate battle flag. Yeah, there is a lot of pride in "Southern Heritage" up there in the prairie provinces. (Ever notice that when these guys say "Southern Heritage," they are never talking about say, Richard Wright or Louis Armstrong? Why is that?) I also don't buy the argument because the Confederate Battle flag is just that, a battle standard. It didn't fly over a court house or official building during the war. The battle flag only started flying over official buildings in the south during the 1950's as a big "screw you" to growing calls for school desegregation by the federal government. You don't have to believe me, go back and see what Southern politicians were saying at the time. The flag that did fly was the so called "Stars and Bars," it was quickly retired as a battle standard because at the long distances of artillery fire, it looked too much like a Union flag. The battle emblem was later incorporated into the flag, but not until mid 1863, more than a year after the graybacks beat a hasty retreat out of Arizona. There goes the "historical" argument that the "Southern Cross" flew over Arizona. It would be so much easier to believe the arguments of the "southern heritage" enthusiasts if they wanted to fly the "Stars and Bars," a flag that lacks the post 1950's baggage of the "Southern Cross." But, they insist on flying it. Yes, you can try to argue that it is a symbol that has been co-opted by racists, but not necessarily racist. Tell me something though, if we found a swastika painted on the side of the JCC tommorrow, would anyone believe that the person painting it was practicing a Navajo healing ritual? Symbols, through no fault of their own, acquire all sorts of meanings depending on who chooses to use them. When you use these symbols, you are communicating the bad history too. I doubt the heritage argument would fly in any other case. What would happen to a Japanese man who flew a 1940's era Imperial Standard in front of his business? Heck, Ron Gould's native Orange County, California tried to pass an ordinance banning the display of the Republic of Viet-Nam flag, despite the fact that we granted the country recognition years ago. I've never figured out the conservative obsession with the Confederate battle flag. Even presidential candidates have to pledge fealty to it. Why the heck would conservatives, who consider themselves so patriotic, want to protect the display of a flag of an army that fired on Old Glory? That rebelled against the mother country? Unless of course, they like those newer connotations. NB - I love the irony of this, given the title of the blog. By the way, Gould calls groups like No More Deaths and Humane Borders treasonous (those pesky phrases about serving the poor and forgotten have been razored out of his Bible, apparently), but he displays the flag of people that tried to destroy our country in the name of keeping other Americans as slaves. There's an irony.|W|P|113949522535882972|W|P|Ron Gould: Coffee Cooler Sesh|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/09/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|On top of that, what does Lake Havasu city have to do with the Confederacy? There was a Confederate state of Arizona in existance for ten days (until Gen. Canby's troops captured the capital), but its capital was at Mesilla (now in New Mexico) and roughly speaking it included only the southern halves of what is now New Mexico and Arizona. I doubt if Lake Havasu city was even within the legal borders of that 'state,' and even if it was, the town wasn't there then.

My question is why no one has run against him up there and made it an issue. As in, 'too weird for Arizona.'2/09/2006 11:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Correction:

The Confederate territory of Arizona was never granted statehood status. I thought I had read somewhere that it was, as one of the last acts of the Confederate congress, and 10 days before Mesilla fell. Anyway, a brief history of the Confederate territory of Arizona (and the map seems to exclude Havasu city) can be found here.2/09/2006 11:45:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|After the start of the American Civil War, support for the Confederacy was strong in the southern part of the New Mexico Territory, largely due to its neglect by the United States government. In March, 1861, the citizens of Mesilla, New Mexico convened a secession convention to separate themselves from the United States and join the Confederate States of America. On March 16th the convention adopted a secession ordinance citing the region's common interests and geography with the Confederacy, the need of frontier protection, and the loss of postal service routes under the United States government as reasons for their separation.[1] The ordinance proposed the question of secession to the western portions of the territory, and on March 28th a second convention in present day Tucson, Arizona also met and ratified the ordinance.

Does that mean your ancestors supported the Confideracy Tedski?2/09/2006 12:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|My ancestors, like most Tucsonians of the period, were solidly for whichever uniform was in town with the guns.2/09/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|My first thought was--Can't the Dems find someone good to run against this guy? [I doubt that he can be ignorant of what this flag symbolizes.] However, the odds would not be good--voter registration in District 3 is

42,000--Republicans
28,000--Democrats
25,000--Non-Party

The Dems will need to do a lot of voter persuasion/registration there.2/09/2006 03:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I saw the interview - what a jerk!

Unfortunately, Gould was the replacement for a reasonable Republican, Linda Binder. She practically got railroaded out of town by the wingnuts up in that district.2/09/2006 05:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|anonymous:

It is possible for a Democrat to win in a Republican district when the Republican is exposed as sufficiently bad (i.e. Jay Blanchard beating Jeff Groscost).

And this would be a good year for it.

Wonder if Binder knows anyone who would be willing to run for the seat? Even if Gould pulled through on it, it would be a nice opportunity to highlight what Republicans are about.2/09/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Also cc burro:

Consider this math:

If 50% of registered voters vote in an off year election, and if Gould and a Democrat each get 90% from their party and 10% of the other party, and if independents (who have been trending Democrat during the Bush era) break for us 65-35% (an optimistic, but not an unreasonable assumption based on their recent trends and the Republican corruption issue that has pervaded the country), then Gould wins by a margin of 24,675-22,835 votes. Now throw in the 'expose a nut' factor that this kind of thing brings up, and suddenly you have at least a potential for an upset. A long shot I admit and based on several assumptions, but also not out of the realm of possibility if you can find an attractive Democrat.2/11/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Eli's point right above mine is the very reason why I think Democrats could, in this year, could get significant gains in the state legislature. If the cards are played correctly...and the Governor appears to be a mean poker player right now.2/12/2006 10:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mr Stapleton|W|P|A Democrat is a long shot in the district. What I suggest, and this will not sound good to some of our more liberal readers is.........

help a more moderate Republican win instead of Gould. I find Gould so offensive that almost anyone else would be better. A Republican to work with is better than one who you cannot work with.

If a moderate ran against Gould I would contribute to his/her campaign.2/12/2006 10:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mr Stapleton|W|P|A Democrat is a long shot in the district. What I suggest, and this will not sound good to some of our more liberal readers is.........

help a more moderate Republican win instead of Gould. I find Gould so offensive that almost anyone else would be better. A Republican to work with is better than one who you cannot work with.

If a moderate ran against Gould I would contribute to his/her campaign.2/08/2006 06:06:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was forwarded an e-mailed "Media Advisory" from Republican Candidate for Governor Gary Tupper. At first, the e-mail sounded like another gripe from a minor candidate who thinks that somehow if he would just get more coverage, the people would see that he is the only man truly qualified and elect him Governor, Kaiser, maybe even Pope. The first paragraph was typical of these sorts of releases:
On Friday February 3, 2006, the Republic ran a front-page feature in the Valley and State section which displayed color pictures, including interviews, of only 4 of the 7 Republican candidates for the office. Despite a formal request on October 18, 2005 to Douglas McCorkindale, Chief Executive Officer of the Gannett Corporation, by Republican gubernatorial candidate Gary Tupper that the organization report the campaign fairly and accurately, the Arizona Republic continues its “selective reporting” of Arizona’s race for governor.
Memo to Tupper: letters from unknown gubernatorial candidates to the heads of newspaper chains get put in the circular file. The only thing that would be more indicative of a fringe candidate would be a threat to sue. The article that Tupper is criticizing was in Friday's Republic. The print version of the article featured photographs of four of the candidates. The other candidates, like Tupper, were in a box on the sidebar. He wasn't "excluded" just not featured with a photograph. The reporters picked who they thought were the four front-runner candidates. Heck, there probably wasn't room for pictures of all seven candidates. The article was about fundraising, and there isn't much point in featuring candidates, like Ted Carpenter, who have had little or no fundraising. Looking at the numbers in the print version, we see that Tupper has only raised $7,120. Hmm...I guess I see why they didn't bother to report too much on him. Wait a sec, right here, Jan Smith-Florez has only raised $6,868...hmm...she's a minor candidate too. Tupper has only raised $10 less than John Greene; that makes him a minor candiate as well. So, Tupper is correct, the Republic should have only bothered to cover two candidates. NB - I make fun of Tupper, but this is a small part of his platform on his website:
I believe that the State needs to investigate more intelligent ways to reduce medical costs. I oppose caps on medical malpractice awards because they will punish the victims of medical negligence and undermine the judicial process. I support equal rights for all minorities. I believe that the only way to effectively address illegal immigration is to address the poverty and corruption in Mexico that causes its population to flee. I support a temporary guest-worker plan. I believe that we need to evaluate the expense of the war on drugs and consider other alternatives to drug problems.
These are the sorts of things that make you a fringy candidate in today's Arizona Republican Party.|W|P|113940546787621449|W|P|Hey May Have A Point|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/08/2006 11:01:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|This guy should change his registration.

I can understand his frustration. The funding and media systms support incumbent officeholders/political players. It is difficult for a "fresh face", who might be much better than the usual suspects/offerings, to get exposure.2/09/2006 01:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|cc burro:

You're right about that. If he were a Democrat and we didn't already have a Governor, his platform makes him sound like he'd be the kind of candidate I'd actually be willing to go out and work for.2/09/2006 08:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Tupper '06!2/07/2006 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Wednesday's Lou Dobbs Tonight will feature a bit about Governor Napolitano's plans for using the Arizona National Guard on the border. The piece will include an interview with some long haired freak legislator that I met once. The show will be broadcast at 4:00 PM Arizona time on CNN. UPDATE: The producers have changed the broadcast to Friday.|W|P|113937845367646630|W|P|Representative Ponytail to Appear on Xenophobic Talk Show|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/07/2006 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Peep|W|P|Please, please explain to me why he voted FOR it and is now talking against it?2/08/2006 12:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hahahaha Peep...

Good on you Tom.2/08/2006 12:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Doggone it, I'm a real working stiff that has a real job I'm working at that can't just flip on CNN at 4:00 in the afternoon.

How did it go?

It's nice to know though that the progressive length head of hair I've been growing is a fashion statement. (or at least, when you see a guy with a buzz cut, you can bet he's probably a Republican, so I guess Tom has been setting the standard for us to draw a contrast.)2/08/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Peep-

What are you talking about?2/08/2006 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous W|W|P|All I know is that you're either for it, or against it. With us, or against us.2/08/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|this is what the bird is talking about

(azstar)

"Rep. Tom Prezelski, D-Tucson, while voting to provide funds for the use of National Guard troops, opposed the mandatory call-up in cases of emergency along the border."

It was a unanimous vote. Is he in this panel?2/08/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I got an explanation from the man himself. The bill he is speaking against is a second bill, authored by that well known compassionate and thinking man Rusty Pierce which was far more extensive and reckless.

For one bill, against a much worse bill. I wouldn't have voted for either one myself, but I gotta argue about something with the guy.2/09/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Peep|W|P|Thanks for the explanation.

Tedski for state house!2/09/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|To TEDKSI--

I'm not that familiar with the Lou Dobbs Show. Why is it referred to as "Xenophobic"?2/09/2006 07:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The man seems to be obsessed with those darned swarthy foreigners who are hell bent on taking your jobs away...one day it's the Chinese...then Mexicans...then Indians...2/10/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Travis|W|P|Only good skiing in Arizona this winter is on this site.2/07/2006 11:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Once again, John McCain has shown the bad side of himself and the national media is shocked, shocked, that he can be so vindictive. Senator Barack Obama committed a horrible faux pas: he wrote a courteous letter to Senator McCain, saying that he had some differences with him. McCain then responded with a snide (and public) letter belittling Obama's lack of Senate experience, and at one point accuses him of "disingenuosness." That is a just another way of calling him a liar, isn't it? McCain has gotten away with this sort of thing for years. That doesn't stop the national media from loving the guy. Maybe this is a side he doesn't show to back slapping Washington reporters, or maybe they are cowed by his war record. I have been frustrated for some time with the kid gloves treatment the guy gets from national political reporters, and even from some liberal activists. The guy has a record of being incredibly vindictive, though. Even when I was sixteen I saw it, when I was working as a volunteer for the campaign of Richard Kimball, the Democrat that ran against McCain. Heck, we were going to lose and lose badly, but that didn't stop the idiot stunts, culminating in the bouquet of black roses that we recieved at campaign headquarters on election night. He has been known to intimidate reporters. The most severe example is that of Amy Silverman, a reporter for the New Times who wrote a series of less than lauditory articles about him. McCain went so far as to try to intimidate Silverman's father, who worked for the federally regulated Salt River Project. When the Arizona Republic published an editorial about this and other incidents with the local press during the 2000 race, Chris Matthews invited McCain on his show and said, "These people in Arizona don't know you the way we do..." Yes Chris, you beltway people are far more qualified to talk about the Senator than his constituents. Despite his reputation as a moderate reformer, he has stuck with some of the most retrograde actors in Arizona's politics, such as the faux-veteran Duke Tully, convicted felon Fife Symington and lobbyist's best pal Jeff Groscost. Republican elected officials who strayed from the reservation would be punished. Sandra Dowling's son, for example, mysteriously didn't get his expected appointment to the US Navy Academy after she endorsed a primary opponent of McCain's pal Symington. Will this lead to the national media reconsidering McCain? The guy, after all, wants to be president. It might be important to look into this stuff.|W|P|113933991295017086|W|P|News Flash: McCain Can Be a Vindictive Jerk|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/07/2006 12:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wasn’t McCain one of the Keating Five? He sure gets a pass from the press on that one. Did he support campaign finance reform just to immunize himself on the corruption issue when he runs for president?2/07/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Keating Five? Yeah...he was also the one who never gave the money back. Keating's wife said in an interview, "With McCain, it was take, take, take..."

Of course, that is old news...but it's still current if you are a Republican trashing DeConcini when he gets appointed to the Board of Regents.2/07/2006 01:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Black roses? What a dick.

My mom always is telling me that actions speak louder then words but I can see that is not with politics.2/07/2006 02:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|i am torn. love the sarcasm, but wish it were directed elsewhere. were it directed toward virtually any other senator, i would have laughed out loud.

obama had a great comeback letter. makes mccain look even smaller.2/07/2006 07:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I like that McCain will speak independently on some things, but after seeing the way he played lapdog to Bush during the 2004 election, allowing himself to be hugged and physically demeaned/used by Bush [whose treatment of McCain during the 2000 primary in South Carolina was despicable], I think that he wants the 2008 presidency SO BAHHHHHHHD, that he will do ANYTHING to win that Republican primary. Such a man as that, I don't trust.2/07/2006 11:55:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|cc -

I agree with the worry about how much McCain wants the presidency - it's scary.

It actually worries me more than his temper (which worries me a LOT!) His letter to Obama, while a work of art to those of us who appreciate the finer uses of sarcasm, was a totally inappropriate response to Sen. Obama's letter.

While John McCain has some good qualities, in terms of temperment, he seems to be totally unsuited for the presidency.2/08/2006 12:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:

The media? Jump on McCain for being vindictive? Dream on. Look at how many people the Bush administration has punished over the years (and the only one the media has covered much has been Valerie Plame, because they were forced to.) They don't care.

anonymous and cc burro:

Exactly. Every action he takes, every word he says, has to be considered in the context of his run for the Presidency. My guess though is that he will fail. The Republican activists don't trust him, and his making a Faustian deal with Rove to support Bush (the 'black baby' smear in SC long forgotten, I guess) won't help him. Rove is 1) more Machiavellian than McCain, 2) won't/can't hand him the nomination in 2008, and 3) will only back McCain if the polls show things leaning so far to the left that the conservatives figure it will be their chance to run a 'moderate,' watch him get squashed to bug goo, and then come back and claim that they need a 'principled conservative.' But if they think they have a chance to win, watch the right wing drop McCain like, well, yesterday's news.2/07/2006 06:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There have been some recent developments in the story of SEIU attempting to get official status with Pima County employees that could spell some real danger for other unions in this state. SEIU recently presented 1,800 signatures from county employees that want to be represented by the union. The process seemed to be moving along so that the union could be granted official status as a bargaining unit for county employees. There is talk now that in an executive session, the County Attorney's office opined that such status would violate the state's so-called "Right to Work law" (also known as the "Right to Work for low wages law"). This would be unusual, since other government entities in the state, such as TUSD and the City of Tucson, have similar agreements. I'm not a labor lawyer, but my understanding is that the "Right to Work" law bans closed shops, but doesn't ban unions from being able to represent workers. It stretches credulity to think that with the disputes and strikes we have had in this state since "Right to Work" was passed that some corporate attorney wouldn't have brought this up before if the law could be read this broadly. I don't know the County Attorney's argument since it was presented in executive session, as all legal opinions are. However, many in the labor movement are worried about the implications of this for other organizing in the state. Some think that there is some self interest here (I know, say it ain't so!). Clerks, to cite one example, in the Pima County Attorney's office are among the lowest paid in the country. Are the muckety mucks there worried that they may have to give their employees a raise? Another interesting thing was a recent letter that County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry sent to AFSCME leadership, after they had sent out a mailing claiming to be the "certified collective bargaining agent for Pima County employees":
...any employee can discuss matters of concern regarding their employment or employment conditions with Pima County and Pima County management, and they need not be affiliated with nor represented by a particular union.
Here, Huckleberry could have just said, "you guys aren't certified, so please don't say you are." Instead, he chose to say that county employees don't need a union. Very revealing. If the county employees are so satisfied with the current arrangement, why did 1,800 of them choose to affiliate with SEIU? If they are so happy, have the vote that these workers are asking for and the employees will choose not to unionize.|W|P|113932343640826136|W|P|SEIU Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/07/2006 08:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|And dogs think antifreeze tastes sweet. Doesn't mean it's not deadly for them. Similarly, if 1800 dumb county employees THINK they want to unionize doesn't mean they don't see the negative effects of unionizing.

I DID take a course on Labor Law in law school a good number of years ago. We were taught by the #2 guy at the NY office of the NLRB. I hated every minute of it. It did nothing but convince me that the only thing that stands between union extinction and their existence is federal law.

If county employees don't like their wages, why don't they look for a job elsewhere? Phoenix is a big town. Leftists can't pull the usual canard that they don't have a choice like Phoenix is some kind of mill town.2/07/2006 09:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Don't they already have the option of joining AFSCME?2/07/2006 09:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|AFSCME isn't a bargaining unit, and their recruitment has been anemic. Despite their being active for 40 years, they had less than 200 members.2/07/2006 12:56:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous 3rd Dr.|W|P|It seems as if Pima is becoming ground zero for the SEIU/AFSCME battle for members. It's sad. I think I can hear the laughter and cheering of Republicans. :(2/07/2006 01:22:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I'm not sure "battle" is the right word when SEIU has 1800 employees signed up and AFSCME has taken 40 years to sign up less than 200 members.

Republicans only laugh when unions are completely ineffective, not when they're gaining members and strength rapidly.2/07/2006 02:41:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Quite a number of signatures from the 1,800 have been withdrawn since SEIU misled county workers and the truth is coming out. Can't lie to the masses and not expect it to stand.2/06/2006 05:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
I don't pay any attention to polls, but I'd like to point out that we are doing very well in those polls. - Pres. George H. W. Bush
A couple of weeks back, I published an entry where I was trying to be overly clever. I wasn't sure how much more obvious I could have made the fact that I was trying to satirize Republican spin over the various polls that show Janet Napolitano with a commanding lead and Jon Kyl with a similar lead. Instead, I was criticized by some posters for being inconsistent. Well, that was exactly my point. Another poster later called me a "self-appointed political expert." I don't know if they were trying to insult me, but obviously he or she is reading this for my opinions on politics. I must know something. Anyway, in my "self-appointed" opinion, the only poll that can really tell you something this early, especially against an unknown opponent, is job approval numbers. Napolitano, for instance, has a job approval rating of 62% and Kyl has one of 44%. A later poll shows Kyl even lower, at 39%. In other words, they might be inclined to vote for Kyl, but only reluctantly under that "Devil you know" theory. Not exactly a place a candidate wants to be. Also, another thing that must be considered is the quality of opponents that the candidates have attracted. Napolitano has attracted opponents that can at best be called second tier (now that Teresa Ottesen has dropped out, they lost their big gun), most of whom have announced that they will run under the clean elections system. They are not going to be able to spend gobs of money to build name identity. This would be the first step before they can build any sort of case against the Governor. Here's a question: is there anyone that voted for Napolitano in 2004, that would break away to vote for Len Munsil or Jan Smith-Florez? The fact that so many big names such as J. D. Hayworth and Mary Peters decided against running also points out that many Republican strategists, when the doors are closed, share this same opinion of Napolitano's numbers. I mean, who really believes that they wanted to spend more time with their families? Family considerations tend to disappear when you smell victory. On the other hand, Kyl is running against Jim Pederson. Yeah, I and four or five other junkies know who Pederson is. However, he has already raised a great deal of money. And unlike the gubernatorial candidates, the man is being taken very seriously by national experts and professionals. So, Kyl is walking in with an exceedingly low approval rating (39%!), and running against a guy that, unlike Napolitano's opponents, can raise the money (or spend his own) to build an effective public case against him. Even with the campaign barely underway, the numbers were measured by Zogby at 52-42 in favor of Kyl. Even with twelve years of Senate experience, Kyl can only manage a ten point lead against someone no one has heard of? By the way, Zogby's poll showing Napolitano a scant three points ahead of Don Goldwater (still no supporters!) was touted by Republicans late last year as an indication that the Governor was toast. I have to admit I was worried too. Turned out the poll was an outlier. We'll see if this senatorial poll is an outlier, but I have a feeling from the direction this campaign is taking, that it will be more like an omen. NB - Yes, I know that the word "poll" in the tile is misspelled. Just because it ain't really funny, doesn't mean it's not my attempt at humor.|W|P|113923350435277527|W|P|Polls: Not Just For Accidently Touching Powerlines With Anymore|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/06/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Great post Ted. I think that everything you said is right on (if I still listened to Limbaugh, I would say "mega-dittos").

I would add that I see this as an election served to the Democrats with a "big fat cherry on top". The question is not whether they can pick up seats from the national to local level, but is, as always, will they get it together enough to actually do it. The organization and enthusiasm that I was in the Tucson City elections gives me a lot of hope.

I was talking to some pretty smart young strategists at a party on Saturday night and they seemed optimistic, but yet still a little timid about trying to take back the legislature. I know that it is a chore with redistricting and Maricopa Republicans with safe seats, but I see the issues in this race (federal and state) as a potential tidal wave that will raise Democrat turnout and even supress Republican turnout. I mean, are any of the candidates on the top of the ticket this fall (including Kyl) "sexy" enough to draw out voters????

This just seems like the most golden of opportunties for the Democratic party. It is a time to be very ambitious and pretty much go for taking back the state legislature. I can see no opportunity better than this.

Roger

Roger2/06/2006 11:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Ted, I'm someone on the right who knows exactly who Pederson is: former Chair of the AZ Dim Party; a rich, fat land developer; a raging hypocrite; and someone who is self-loathing for his own success.

The Washinton Post today had an article highlighting the chances the Dimocrats have nationwide on certain races. Granted, you're a little closer to the Arizona ground game than any of the buffoons in the DC area, but the Post seemed to give Pederson only a longshot chance.

My only word of advice is, don't underestimate how "sexy" Kyl is to the conservatives. He's got awful high ratings from the American Conservative Union and other conservative groups. That will turn out volunteers in droves and push votes to the polls. That can only help R candidates down the ticket. Trust me, if I were back home in Arizona, I'd be working my butt off for Kyl.2/06/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|NAR-

I have no doubt that Kyl excites the base. I'm just saying that that base seems to only represent somewhere around 40% of the electorate. That gives Pederson and the rest of us "Dimocrats" plenty of places to get votes from.2/06/2006 12:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Kral...I know that the national level Dems who are running for House seats are currently working their butts off towards a national message, even if the DCCC will not pay attention to us (112 at the last count! Go Nov Victory!)

Oh and Ted: 1. I helped in getting Teresa to drop out and 2. the damn woman was stupid (I told her this) enough to think she could have done it without clean elections money.2/06/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski - I actually think Kyl has the whole party fired up. From the Brie and wine Rockeffer Republicans all the way to the Len Munsil crowd. If you are looking for a split in the AZ GOP you will need to look else where, i.e. CD 8.

Everyone is talking about all the money that Pederson has to spend but he may get about as much for it as George Sorros got backing John Kerry.2/06/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The one thing that will hurt Jim Pederson's chances is that John McCain will campaign for Jon Kyl. McCain can't afford to have his presidential chances hurt by letting his fellow homestate Senator lose, so he'll throw his 80%+ approval rating behind Kyl and that should more than make up for Kyl's lukewarm support.2/06/2006 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Rockefeller Republicans? How many of them are there?

I mean, besides Winthrop.2/06/2006 04:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|OK, maybe Rockefeller Republicans is a little dated.

Pick a term tedski; Country Club Republicans, Fiscal Conservative Republicans, Moderate Republicans, etc. There are quite a few, i.e. Toni Hellon, Kolbe, Huffman. Basically those in the GOP that are not Social Conservatives.

The point is that Kyl has both groups solidly in his corner.2/06/2006 05:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with what Ted said about the base...John Kyl might turn out the base, but he appears to turn off others and is a shadow in comparison to McCain. I also see very little exciting on the Republican ticket right now. I do see McCain turning out to help Kyl. Kyl has almost a perfect conservative record, as was mentioned, and McCain needs to certainly play to this consituency in order win the primaries in 08 (South Carolina anyone???).

However, Kyl is not that popular and is linked more to the administration on most issues than almost anyone. In fact, but for being tougher on the border, I don't see him doing much but following Bush. So will staying close to Kyl be useful to McCain when he probably will want to appeal to moderates?

Last, Kyl is going to win...and I think Republicans know it. That is not going to bring a ton of people out unless it gets really close with Pederson. I think the Democrats are going to turn out in droves this time. Oh, and those Rep. Gov. candidates are not going to inspire anyone to turnout (might see the opposite affect on Democratic voters unless they are happy to reward Napolitano).

Roger2/06/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger,

Very well written. But I spend a lot of time around Republicans and I have not yet met anyone who is not solidly behind Kyl, from Kolbe supporters to Graf supporters. That is a pretty wide spectrum.

The GOP may not yet have a sure fire voter drawl for November. But it is still very early.

Watch out if the "Protect Marriage Amendment" makes it onto the ballot because that would assure high turnout among social conservatives.2/06/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx Kid,

Thanks for the kind words. Good post of your own. I don't doubt that Republicans will support him...I just wonder if they will be lining up to vote for him as Demos will this time.

As to the "Protect Marriage Act"...I don't know your opinion on it so I will not ascribe one...but I find the use of that to draw out voters as being sad, sad, sad. Although, I think you are correct.

I didn't want to go off on it, but I know some fine fine people that will be personally harmed by that ACT. I am an independent and this is one of the issues that drove me from the Republican party. Frankly, as a citizen, I feel harmed by this proposed Act because it is specifically designed to discriminate and it would be in our Constitution. Wow. No church has to marry anyone that they don't want to marry...and I don't see any societal harm in allowing people to marry and to acheive the civil rights and benefits that our government bestows on so many.

I just hope it backfires on them, Phx Kid. I would like to see the Democrats take leadership on this issue, but they appear to fear it.

Best to you,

Roger2/07/2006 12:05:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I did some checking on Kyl’s election history. In his first run for the Senate he won with 54% in 1994. In his second run, without a Democratic opponent, he won with 79% of the vote. Back in 1992 he was in the House. That was the last time that he ran as an incumbent against a Democratic challenger. He won with 60% of the vote. He has a solid record. (Please feel free to check my numbers because it is late and those old reports were hard to read.)

Pederson has raised a great deal of money but that will only raise the importance of this election to the GOP in Washington. They will be paying close attention and poor resources into this race as needed.2/07/2006 06:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|In 1992, Kyl ran in a very conservative district, if he wasn't able to clear 60% of the vote against a weak Democratic opponent (I think it was a guy named Walter Mybeck), I'd be worried about him. 1994 was a horrible year for Democrats in general. In 2000, organizational squabbles within the party prevented the party from recruiting a candidate.

You look at as being strong, I see it as more than a decade since he has actually been tested.2/07/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Larry The Cable Guy Fan|W|P|You mispelled "pole" you dumb pollack! Haw! Haw! Haw!

Go Kyl!2/07/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Um...I guess I should reply to that given the foot note...but I also figured out exactly who wrote that...I will be giving you a call...2/07/2006 03:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It was not me.

Git er' Done.


KS Bean Plant2/05/2006 01:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Hey, any of you have any idea of the reaction of the Governor's staff to the cover of the Weekly? I think it's kind of cool, but people get sensitive at times. I know there are a few people up on the ninth floor reading this, so y'all can chime in. When Raúl Grijalva ran for re-election, Four Four Two magazine had a cover item on Spanish national team player Raúl (no last names please, he is a fútbol star). I used photoshop...not well, mind you. But I managed to put Grijalva's head on the cover. They put it up in the campaign office. I wasn't there, but reportedly he said "Man, I look good..."|W|P|113917310931637402|W|P|Weekly Cover|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/06/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I think that it is up in the DC office.2/06/2006 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|grrrrrrrrr!

mmm, mmm, mmm. Got any fries with that shake, mama?

;-)2/04/2006 07:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Israel Torres, Arizona's Registrar of Contractors, is set to announce his candidacy for Secretary of State next Thursday. I don't know much about this guy, but he's gotten plaudits from the press for restructuring his agency and making it relevant. He has already been laying the ground work for his candidacy, having a meeting two weeks ago with various west and south side potentates at a South Tucson restaurant. The only other announced candidate is Bruce Wheeler. Wheeler has had a low profile even in Tucson since his run for mayor eleven years ago. Wheeler has been making the rounds, speaking to varrious Democratic and progressive groups. He says all of the right things. He has an articulate and compelling argument against Jan Brewer. However, I haven't seen a willingness of Phoenix voters to vote for Tucson candidates in recent years, especially one that hasn't had a high profile in more than a decade. Of course, Brewer has her own problems, since she's got a primary against Skip Rimsza.|W|P|113906521244573953|W|P|Another Candidate for Secretary of State?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/04/2006 11:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Given the number of people who will be disenfranchised next year from voting because of Jan Brewer's restrictions based on prop 200, I hope we are smart enough to really publicize her role before the primary election. Then, any primary voters who get turned away during the primary will 1) know better before the general, and 2) if they are angry about being turned away, they will know to blame Jan Brewer.

To be honest, I would favor a Constitutional Amendment adding the position of Lieutenant Governor who runs on a ticket with the governor. It has made it almost impossible for Governor Napolitano to leave the state with Jan Brewer running things when she is gone.2/05/2006 06:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Israel will be a great candidate - articulate, thoughtful, energetic ... Even thought he is from the upper Gila; Southern Arizonans should really look at what he has done these past few years as part of the Governor's staff.2/05/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Many states are moving away from having elected Lt. Governors. The trouble is, in most places, the Lt. Governor has few responsibilities, and ends up being a tremendous waste of public money.

Interestingly, the Republicans used to always talk about creating the office when Mofford, Shumway and Mahoney were in office. I haven't heard much talk about it lately...hmm...2/05/2006 08:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|"Jan Brewer's restrictions" eli I thought the voters of Arizona passed prop 200. If so they are not Jan's restrictions.

By the way what restrictions ? Having to show ID to vote. Sounds pretty normal to me. What is wrong with preventing election fraud ?2/05/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Fraud?! What fraud?! In Maricopa County, with a GOP Recorder (LD 20) is the sole case.

Present a government issued photo ID at the polls with your current address? What's the choice, driver's license since it is the only basic government identification that lists addresses!

If you can't present that, show a bill (electric, gas, water)? Gee, who does this affect with Proposition 200?!

The elderly (who vote) and who may be in assisted living places.

Youth (our future), since they may be sharing a house and apartment and the bill may be in one persons name or their parents!

Getting back to the current address situation, another group of people this draconian measure affects:

Native-American nations, who in most cases, don't have them and use descriptions of where their homes are!

Of course, the intent of this measure was to discourage voter participation, especially with minority groups, part of the GOP effort to end democracy in America!

John E., if this was such a fool-proof measure, why then was early voting and vote by mail not written into the measure? WELL!2/05/2006 02:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tucsonmark you never explained how this is Brewer’s fault for enforcing an initiative passed be the voters.

Are you telling me that while previous generations spilled their own blood and gave their lives for freedom young people today who may have roommates cannot bear the burden of getting a drivers license or state ID?

If an elderly person lives in an assisted living home the solution is simply to vote by mail. What’s the problem there?

Do Native Americans not have an ID system? They should be able to get a state drivers license or state ID card. If there are still issues here then lets fix them so all US citizens can vote.

The intent of the prop. 200 was very simple. Show some proof of US citizenship in order to vote at the polls. Sounds simple to me. Voting has never been easier. You can register by mail, vote by mail, or vote at the polls with ID. That is pretty easy.

As for LD 20, the case is being investigated, as it should be.2/05/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|John E.

Where did I even say it was Brewer's fault in my statement?!

Also, what is the point of voter registration cards then that are issued?!

Gee, if the roommates didn't have an i.d. with their current address, the next item on the list is a bill, does the electric, water or gas company bill by individual? No, by household!

You're comment about the native American population is choice as well. The Tohono O'odham nation does have addresses and what does the proposition say, photo identification with their current address. HELLO!

Where does one spilling their blood enter into this argument?!

You're comment about the elderly is choice! If one doesn't have an identification with their current address then what?

Also, what about changing one's name as in a wife?!

Yes, showing proof at the polls is paramount, but leads again to the question of the purpose of the voter registration card.

This leads me to believe you are either not from Arizona, completely unaware of election in re: to Proposition 200 or you have not read the proposition language completely!
Which one is it?

TTFN!2/05/2006 07:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|To follow up John E.

What about the Georgia law?

As well, there is Ohio's HB 3, which ends democracy in the Buckeye state oe Indiana?

In these three states, they were passed by the GOP controlled legislature and Georgia and Indiana's was signed by the GOP governor.

Ohio's is on convicted Gov. Bob Taft's desk awaiting his signature.

Well?2/05/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I just checked the Secretary of State web site and found that you can vote with one of the following as long as it has photo, name and address; Valid Arizona driver license, Valid Arizona nonoperating identification license, Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.

Or you can vote with two of the following that just have a name on them; Utility bill of the elector that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television, Bank or credit union statement that is dated within ninety days of the date of the election, Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration, Indian census card, Property tax statement of the elector's residence, Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, Vehicle insurance card, Recorder's Certificate, Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county recorder.

Of course the real simple solution is to just get an Arizona photo ID card for $12 with your current address. It even works if you are just a roommate.

Yes, at some point, the current rules require some effort to vote. Most things are like that.2/05/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|To John E.

Questions were posed. Will you answer them? A quick look at the Arizona Secretary of State's website does not an answer make. The statement would lead one to believe that you haven't read the ENTIRE ballot proposition, including the fact that if someone votes with a provisional ballot, because they don't have the proper id, they have three days to get to their Recorder's office with the proper credentials or their vote won't be tabulated. That is just one of the many provisions of Proposition 200, part of the nationwide GOP effort to thwart democracy in this country!!!!!!!!2/06/2006 07:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|To tucsonmark

"GOP effort…" Wait, I thought the voters of Arizona voted for 200. If so then it is a conspiracy of the voters to require some kind of ID at polling places. I guess that is too much for you to handle.2/06/2006 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|the problem with the Prop 200 voting changes comes not primarily with the propostion itself but with the application of the new law in regulations set forth by Jan Brewer. She fought tooth and nail not to allow those who come to the polls w/o proper ID to fill out a provisional ballot.2/06/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|John E:

Yet again, questions have been posed and still no answers. Will you answer them instead of avoiding the subject?

To anonymous: I am glad there is someone who has read the proposition as well as the subsequent articles and the drafting of the rules by Brewer.

John. E. Gee, ID, isn't the voter registration card identification, something paid for by the taxpayers?! Hmmm!

Perhaps questions are too much for you to handle.

TTFN!2/06/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Is Kristin Smith going to come back as Bruce Wheeler's press secretary?2/06/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I am happy to respond. The relevant issue here is not the text of Prop. 200 but what the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) say. See ARS 16-579 for Procedures for obtaining ballot by elector. There are 2 versions, which I must admit is a bit confusing. Yet both versions say to obtain a ballot a person must “present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.”

Get it? That is the law in Arizona. Brewer is just enforcing the law. Your issue should properly be with the VOTERS of Arizona that passed Prop. 200 not with Brewer.2/06/2006 03:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|John E:

Jan Brewer then wrote the specifics of the law. And here is one that will result in a lot of people being turned away: If your address on your driver's license doesn't match the address where you are registered to vote (for example, if you moved) then they will turn you away. And with the new driver's licenses that don't have to be renewed until you are sixty-five, quite a few people have moved at least down the block.

That is a Jan Brewer interpretation of the law, not anything that was written into prop 200. But those are the directions she has sent out. We need to make it very clear to voters BEFORE the primary that the new rules were written by Jan, because they were.2/06/2006 03:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|And yes, if someone moved (maybe without changing what it says on their voter registration, so that a current utility bill also won't work) they can come back within three days after the primary and show I.D. but that is still a pain in the behind-- that is why I think reminding voters it is Jan's fault would be a good idea-- most people have a higher tolerance for being inconvenience by the President of the Governor or Congress, but since pretty much this is what the Secretary of State is responsible for, they are more likely to vote against her in November.2/06/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Bruce Wheeler really deserves our support in the primary and the general election. Isabel Garcia's ex-husband has impeccable progressive credentials and he really is a great guy. He is always participating in all of the D campaigns and has earned our support! I wish this website would stop promoting only DLC types!2/06/2006 04:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Lefty|W|P|Hey Ted:

Please let your loyal bloggers know about Israel's announcement in Tucson! Hope you can make it.

Thursday, Feb. 9th
3:00 PM
Knights of Columbus Hall
601 South Tucson Blvd.

PS- just to clear things up, he's not a DLC type, i don't think he's ever talked to anyone there. most of us Dems don't(ha, ha). and he's from good 'ol NM like your Gov. Although, he's been in Arizona since he was a young boy.

"Brewer's toast in '06"2/06/2006 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Per ARS 16-579 “2. If the person does not present a document that complies with paragraph 1, the person is only eligible to vote a provisional ballot as prescribed by section 16-584.” Hey, did I read that the Governor and Attorney General signed off on this?

Just to clarify, ARS are the laws of Arizona, passed by the Legislator and signed by the Governor. The Secretary of State carries out the laws, she does vote for or sign them.

Go ahead; make this an issue in the election. The voters already spoke to this issue when they approved Prop. 200 and they voted for ID at the polls.

If the current situation is so bad get the legislature to send a revised bill, fixing whatever you think is so wrong, for the Governor to sign. Jan will then be bound to carry it out. Very straight forward.2/06/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Promoting DLC types?

Here I was planning on doing a Joe Lieberman bashing post tonight because of his pseudo-endorsement of McCain. Seriously, I was going to, still probably will when I get home. I don't know enough about Torres to say whether he is a "DLC-type" or not. Frankly, neither do you.2/06/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|My main concern with Brewer is that she has not fulfilled the requirement of the Help America Vote Act regarding "The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such a system." Do any of you know why is she against this federal requirement?2/06/2006 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|She's against it because she is only for spending HAVA money if it involves paper that she can plaster her face on and mail to voters.2/06/2006 11:40:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|tedski - sounds like you are describing the Governor’s use of tourism dollars to put her face all over billboards.2/07/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You got me on that one.2/07/2006 07:43:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Anonymous--

How many billboards show the Governor's face? More than just the ones at the state line "You are now entering....Welcome, welcome, welcome... [spend lots of money while you're here]"2/08/2006 11:49:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|How many billboards were up with the Governor's picture? Well there was at least one at on Central at about Virginia in Phoenix. Not exactly the place I would have put a billboard to encourage people to visit Arizona. Seems like at that point, they're already here!2/08/2006 04:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|Re the signs--

A sign with the Governor's face in Phoenix...that does seem to be a little after the fact. Perhaps it is for the drunks who drive from Las Vegas to Phoenix, wake up in the morning and don't know where they are.2/10/2006 06:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I don't know why I bother, but the billboards are supposed to encourage in-state tourism. Governor Symington did something similar.2/11/2006 07:49:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|anyone else have info on israel....good guy? hard worker?? what kind of job did he do at register of contractors? we need fresh faces and new ideas.2/11/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|I could not see voting for a Democratic Sec. of State candidate from southern AZ unless this person had a golden tongue, tons of gravitas and good ideas, positive state-wide recognition. We need to get rid of Brewer. The only way I'll vote for the southern Arizona candidate is if the Phoenix candidate totally sucks.2/03/2006 02:25:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was inadvertently steered to this story by Espresso Pundit, who really only was interested in it because it also included an item taking a shot at Chip Scutari. He looks like Richard Hatch! Does that mean Robbie Sherwood looks like Dirk Benedict? Anyhow, I found the rest of the column more interesting. Apparently, Republican Chairman Matt Salmon managed to push a resolution through the State Committee that stated:
Resolved, That the Arizona Republican Party calls upon the State of Arizona and the Federal government of the United States to more aggressively promote the development and use of renewable energy sources.
Nice, but strange given that the Republicans in this state have rarely been that keen on such things, considering anyone who brings issues like this up in public as a squishy tree hugger, even worse, maybe a reader. Not only did Salmon make sure the resolution got introduced, but he cut off discussion early and rammed it through. The resolution apparently called on the Corporation Commission to increase the ammount of energy that our state's utilities get from alternative sources like solar energy. A great goal. Not a bad idea at all. Renz Jennings used to do this sort of thing all the time when he was a commissioner. So, that begs the question, since when are Republicans the least bit interested in such things? Matt Salmon is a lobbyist. In the past, Salmon was registered to lobby for the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association. Apparently this issue will be before the Corporation Commission in the next few weeks. I don't have a problem with a lobbyist leading a state party. Even though being a state party chairman is a quasi-public office, it doesn't possess the real constitutional power of a state legislator or county row officer. However, this seems to be sketchy. It is really hard for me to get too riled up when he is pushing solar power. It's kind of amusing, actually. But it strikes me as ethically marginal to use even the very limited power of state party chairmanship in service to a private client.|W|P|113900350241745168|W|P|Salmon Uses Republican Committee to Promote Client|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/03/2006 05:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Par for the course, my friend. Par for the course.2/03/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Slim claimed when I last wrote about David Burnell Smith that he no longer wanted me to write about him. Yes, Slim, but you read the entry and responded to it. This must mean you were interested. Otherwise, you would have just scrolled through it looking for your name the way my brother does. Besides, you are far more of a clean elections maven than I am. Supporters of Smith were hoping that Smith's name could be forwarded to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and they could get him re-appointed. Appointments since the new law have been to replace people who have voluntarilly resigned their office, so this would have been an interesting legal test. However, I don't believe that the Board would have appointed him in any case. Nevertheless, Smith tried to get on "the list," the three nominees that get forwarded to the board. Smith was, however, unable to get on the list. I guess even Republican activists weren't buying his story. Maybe if he was a legislator that showed up, or did something, he might have had a little more support. As a fellow loser in this process, I feel for you man. Of course, I didn't get thrown out of office. The names they forwarded were Nancy Barto, Howard Levine and Howard Sprague. Howard Sprague? Is this the same perennial candidate Howard Sprague that ran for congress, legislature and even president? As a Democrat? I have my doubts that had the committeepeople known his checkered past they would have voted him in. Activists tend not to trust party switchers in these cases. It's what doomed Peter Hormel's attempt to get appointed a few years ago. I ran a presidential caucus back in 1992, when Sprague made his astonishing, and nedless to say futile, run at the world's most powerful office. A voter walks up to me, ballot in hand. "Who is Howard Sprague?" "He's a Democratic activist, he wanted to be on the ballot." "What the hell for?" NB - Howard Sprague is no relation to Todd Sprague, the alias for sex offender and Evan Mecham supporter Kip Shippy used by Ronald Watkins in his book High Crimes and Misdemeanors. What ever happened to that guy? Shippy, not Watkins.|W|P|113897904583210765|W|P|Post-Mortem Equine Flagelation|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/03/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I know this is totally irrelevant but I can't help but ask. Is he wearing a wig?2/03/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I don't know...but I've suspected that he overdoes the Grecian Formula.2/03/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|Man, you shouldn't put up pictures like that. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the guy.

Howard Sprague for State House!2/03/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted,

Assuming they don't pick Sprague, which of the other two candidates is most likely to be reasonable (as opposed to a right wing wack job that will just line up with the conservative leadership?)2/03/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I know little about the other candidates, I understand that Barto is the chairman of the District 7 Republicans and was a delegate to the Republican convention.

I don't know anything about Levine.2/10/2006 01:27:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Bob Haran|W|P|Arizona State Representative David Burnell Smith has made history by becoming the first legislator in America to be removed from office for violating a campaign finance law. Smith has finally paid a price for overspending on his 2004 taxpayer funded campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives. The people that elected Smith to represent them have also paid a price. Smith has been forced from the office the people of his legislative district had elected him to serve in. It seems that the American principle of, government by the consent of the governed, has also paid a price.

Smith agreed to comply with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission rules when he accepted public funding for his campaign. The commission, which is an un-elected- appointed body, has determined that Smith violated their rules by overspending on his campaign and must forfeit the office the voters elected him to.

Let us assume that Smith did in fact violate the Citizens Clean Elections Act of 1998, which was approved by the voters and provides penalties for violations of the Act in the form of monetary fines and if one is elected, the forfeiture of office. If a candidate for office violated the Act and lost the election, they could not possible be subject to the same penalty of, forfeiture of office, as someone who was elected, therefore, the candidate that is the choice of the people, is subject to an extra penalty for the same offense then someone that was not the people’s choice, this is not fair to the candidate that is chosen by the people or to the voters that elected him or her.

Second only to the United States Constitution, the Arizona Constitution is the supreme law in Arizona. A constitution determines the powers and duties of a government and guarantees certain rights and powers to the people that live under it’s laws. The state constitution creates a legislative branch which is elected by the people and prescribes the method of expulsion of members for disorderly behavior. The Arizona Constitution also provides for the recall of elected officials by the people through a special election for that purpose. The Arizona Constitution clearly applies the principle of, government by the consent of the governed, by giving to the people the power to choose who shall represent them in the legislature and also the power to remove elected officials when they choose to do so. There is no provision in the Arizona Constitution for the removal of an elected official by an un-elected-appointed commission.

The Citizens Clean Elections Act of 1998 gives the commission the power to impose monetary fines on candidates for violations of their rules and the penalty of forfeiture of office, when a violator is elected. The forfeiture of office provision is clearly in conflict with the Arizona Constitution. The Clean Elections Act is not part of the constitution, it is a law, and when a law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution, as the supreme law, shall prevail.

You can love David Burnell Smith or hate him, unless you disagree with the principle of , government by the consent of the governed, you must admit that the people have a right to chose their own representatives and no appointed commission should have the power to overturn their choice.

Forfeiture of office is too high a price to pay for violating a campaign finance law, it not only removes someone from office but also deprives the people of their right to have whom they want to represent them, it is government without the consent of the governed.

Bad laws can and should be changed. I pray that David Burnell Smith is the last legislator in America to be removed from office for violating a campaign finance law and that the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act will be amended to remove the forfeiture of office penalty.


Bob Haran,
Phoenix, AZ
www.Bob-Haran.info
Bob Haran is a Conservative,Citizen Activist. In 2000 he was the Republican nominee for the Arizona House of Representatives in Phoenix.2/02/2006 07:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some Republican leaders are now claiming that Gov. Napolitano's line item veto of some items in a pay raise bill for state employees is unconstitutional. They are hoping to mount a legal challenge, but I have my doubts about whether or not it will be successful, given that shakier line item vetoes have been upheld over the past few years. I did some research on line item vetoes, and I found out that they are a very dangerous thing. I mean, look at the radicals that have endorsed them in the past:
The line item veto is an essential fiscal tool for weeding out excessive and wasteful spending... -Stephen Moore
Legislators love to be loved, so they love to spend money. Line item veto is essential to enable the executive to hold down spending. -William Weld
When I was governor of California, the governor had the line item veto, and so you could veto parts of the spending in a bill. The president can't do that. I think, frankly--of course, I'm prejudiced--government would be far better off if the president had the right of line-item veto. -Ronald Reagan
Who are the ones doing the power grab, the one exercising the rights given to her in the state constitution, or the people looking to an unelected judge to stop her?|W|P|113893553972448617|W|P|Yeah, Yeah, an Obvious Power Grab, I Know|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/02/2006 10:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Apparently the language she struck would have denied some state employees who made over a certain amount the right to appeal terminations and demotions.

Now, due process is a crucial component of the workplace, so I would argue that by striking the language in question, the governor is saving the state from a lawsuit, because this would certainly end up in court otherwise.2/02/2006 10:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|In fact, apparently it is now official. The legislature plans to take the governor to court, to try and get the court to overturn her veto, so they can go back to court and be sued by workers who are denied their due process rights. Boy, some lawyers are sure going to make a little nest egg off of this one.

I'm glad they respect my tax dollars so much.2/02/2006 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I've worked in the state government for quite some time and most of the new hires who start at $45,000+ are coming into already uncovered (exempt) positions or "appointed" positions and many of these are supervisory positions. The state doesn't pay well enough to make this a big issue [from what I can see].2/03/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Tedski! I'm surprised at you. You forgot the best quote of all.

Surely, you remember this gem from Tuesday?

"I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)"

---George W. Bush2/03/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Wow...I guess it would have helped if I had actualy watched the State of the Union.

But thank you.2/02/2006 06:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've resisted writing anything about this, mostly because it is a story I am having trouble following. I have trouble following it mostly because I am usually uninterested in intramural disputes between Maricopa County Republicans. Let 'em kick each other, I say. Back in 2004, the Republican primary for State House in District 20 (Ahwatukee, Western Chandler) featured five candidates, including incumbent Bob Robson. The second seat was open, and three candidates ended the evening within single digits of eachother. That's single digit votes, not percentages. The main dispute right now is between John McComish and Anton Orlich (whatever happened to Jeff "JD" Dial?). Orlich ended the evening ahead by four votes, but McComish was declared the winner when more votes were counted. Ever since then, a group of Republican activists, including Sen. Jack Harper, have been fighting to seat Orlich, even getting the New Times to pay for an investigation of the election. However, I have been suspicious of the motives of the folks helping Orlich. McComish isn't their kind of conservative, and this just seems to be a way of undercutting more moderate voices in the caucus. This is also why I have been disapointed with the "Live Free or Diebold" crowd in my party on this one. I have been getting e-mails from folks in the local progressive caucus, proud that they are helping demand a recount. I wouldn't mind so much if say, Harper was pushing for broader election reform or calling for a paper trail. Unfortunately, they are throwing in with the right wing of the Republican party to skewer a moderate, and getting little or nothing that will actually assure fair elections. Is Harper sponsoring any bill demanding hand counts in other close elections? Nope. But, here is the best part: Rumor has it that Orlich has left the state. That's right, Harper and company are fighting on behalf of a guy that didn't even bother to stay in town. Lovely. I was going to point out the hypocricy of the Republicans now being all about recounts and election reform (but only in this case!), but I figured I'd leave that up to you. NB - Hey, Harper and the conservative activists who so much want election reform, but only when it comes to Republican primaries in District 20 occuring between 2003 and 2005, you have a chance to show where you really stand. Rep. Doug Quelland has a bill allowing the Secretary of State to suspend elections when she has determined there is "civil disorder" or any "catostrophic event." You guys come out against this piece of authoritarianism, then we can talk as fellow reformers.|W|P|113888726215213410|W|P|Wait, You Mean 2004 Isn't Over?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/02/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Actually, they are not "fighting to seat Orlich." The election has been certified and a recount would have no bearing on the outcome, except to show whether there are problems with the voting machines in Maricopa County. In the first count, Orlich was ahead by 4 votes. In the recount, over 400 new votes were 'found' and McComish ended up winning by a larger margin.

Whether you like Orlich's politics or not, that's indicative of a real problem, especially when you consider the lame explanations the county recorder has given for the disparity and the County Attorney's complicity in preventing a key witness from testifying in the lawsuit over the recount. Because a deputy county attorney working for Orlich-supporter Andrew Thomas told a witness who had information that there were problems with the voting machines NOT TO COME TO COURT despite her subpoena, the court had no choice but to certify the election.

I'm no fan of Harper (or Thomas or Orlich or any of them for that matter). But something is rotten in the state of Denmark and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Why should we let partisan politics choose our side for us? Perhaps you're afraid that if something is found to be wrong with the machines, that would undermine Napolitano's razor thin victory over Matt Salmon???

Luckily, the US Attorney's Office has gotten involved and subpoenaed the ballots to investigate.2/02/2006 09:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You criticize me for "partisan politics" then bring up the old cannard that Napolitano somehow didn't really win the election. Next, I'll hear afain how she was put into office by illegal aliens.

What is frustrating me is that I don't see these same Republicans being the least bit concerned about broader reforms which would prevent these alleged shenanigans from happening in the future.2/02/2006 11:57:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|point well taken on the Napolitano remark, but you don't address why we, the non-rightwingers, should sit this out or criticize the effort to get to the bottom of the problem ... if there is one.

First, they need to do the recound and machine analysis and then, if it turns out there are problems, address broader reforms. You're putting the cart before the horse, Ted.

Dems don't need to "take sides" with the moderate or extremist Republicans in order to want to get to the truth ... no matter what that may turn out to be.2/02/2006 11:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Remember that NY transit workers strike? Well, just recently, they voted on their proposed contract, and despite the support for the contract from both Mayor Bloomberg and the President of the union, it was defeated 11,234 to 11,227.

The thing about that is, that despite the disappointing outcome from the point of view of those who wanted to see the contract passed, there were no complaints about how the votes were counted. Everyone agreed that the result was accurate.

What this proves is that if you want to run an accurate election in which the results, no matter how close, are beyond dispute, you can do so. So one has to conclude that the party in power doesn't WANT to get things right-- being in power, they have a 'fudge factor' which they may not apply against each other, but which they can against Democrats.2/02/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|It doesn't exactly take a self-proclaimed political expert to track down Orlich's whereabouts... after all, he only made the national news.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-12-27-pronosticate-usat_x.htm

----B2/02/2006 03:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Hmm...well...if he's planning on joining McKinsey and Co, he'd have to leave since they have no Phoenix operations.

Not self-proclaimed...self-ordained...very different.2/03/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I'm afraid I agree with the recount/ballot access folks on this one. The more evidence that the vote can be, and, in fact, has been jiggered, the stronger the case for reform becomes. If that costs us a moderate Pug, so be it.

Oddly, there is no mention here that the FBI has seized the ballots and is conducting an 'investigation'. Does it mean that I have become terminally paranoid when I no longer trust the FBI to act as anything other than a Bush Gestopo?2/01/2006 05:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Eva Bacal has dropped out of the CD 8 race and has thrown her support to Gabrielle Giffords. I guess the frequent complaints about her not updating her website are moot. Many of Bacal's supporters from her last campaign were already on board with Giffords, but it can't hurt to have her support. This still leaves the race with enough candidates to play a basketball game, complete with a couple of subs. Who is that one pro-Bacal poster on here? Which way are you going now?|W|P|113884024458891125|W|P|Bacal Throws in the Towel|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/01/2006 08:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Speaking of baseball, maybe the Democratic candidates could play the Republican candidates.

Charge admission and use it as a fundraiser. Pass the signature petitions through the bleachers.2/02/2006 11:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|The quote about not watching the State of the Union address was telling. To be a successful contender, you've got to have hope that things can change.2/02/2006 02:28:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Does this mean that Martin will take off his Eva bumper sticker?2/02/2006 10:07:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|So I went to the Democracy for America event last night. Very entertaining. I thought it was interesting that Patty Weiss ended her part by going negative against former Senator Giffords. She mentioned something about sending a career politician to Washington and implied that she was corrupt. I have never heard anyone accuse Giffords of being corrupt until last night. As far as I know she has been an honest and capable public servant. Sending a hardworking, experienced and smart candidate to DC is what this town should do. Reading from the teleprompter is not experience to be effective in congress.2/03/2006 12:12:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous anonymous Pima|W|P|It is totally fair to bring up the concern that many citizens have of "career politicians". A career politician's main concern is getting elected [and re-elected].

Which leads me to this question:
Did you notice the nuanced change in Giffords' Iraq stance from what she said at the Patagonia forum several weeks ago? It seems to me that she has seen the writing on the wall re how a lot of Democrats feel about the Iraq War and is responding by nuancing her position accordingly. This makes me wonder what her real stance is on Iraq--you can't find it on her website.

Re the nasty teleprompter remark--Nina Trasoff also was a television anchor, who later went into public relations, along with performing much community service along the way. I have great faith in her integrity, intelligence, and know that she will be a VERY good City Councilwoman. So why not give Patty Weiss the benefit of the doubt for now until you know otherwise?2/03/2006 05:12:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|To anonymous pima. I don't want to give Patty Weiss the benefit of the doubt because the work of government is serious business. We have big problems in this country and I don't see anything in her background that would leave me to think that she would be effective. We have the opportunity to elect a democrat that will get things done - Giffords.2/03/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Weiss is in a position where she has to attack Giffords to get loyal Democrat voters on her side. Giffords is the front runner, with more money and overall support. Weiss has to do something to get on the radar of the primary voters.

The problem is that this can backfire. Usually attacking raises name recognition of the relatively unknown challenger to the front runner. Weiss is already well known, so she might make herself look less "Congressional" AND worse she may simply raise Giffords name rec. with voters outside the party. Attacking Giffords gives her MORE credibility.

Theories...theories...just theories.2/03/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I wonder about Giffords, too. She has now flip flopped, but so has Weiss. She to had a different opinion at Patagonia. The two candidates that have credibility on this matter, Latas and A-rod, both have stuck to their guns about leaving and now the rest of the pack follows. Who are the real leaders? I haven't seen any independent polls on who the front runner is. I dare say, you all are underestimating some off the others working behind the senses. I predict a “Fall Surprise.”2/03/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|re: Patty Weiss goes negative.

This bears the indellible mark of Frank Costanzo.

Pima County Chair Paul Eckerstrom has indicated that the party will punish candidates for going negative in the primary in this race. It will be interesting to see if he makes good on the threat.2/03/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Calling Giffords a career politician isn't negative, it's the truth. Too bad if that brings some baggage now. By the way, she never did do clean elctions; always a traditionalist/not clean. Something fishy about that.2/03/2006 10:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well...if that is the standard...NONE of the Democratic candidates have taken clean elections money, have they?2/04/2006 01:40:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous cc burro|W|P|No one is saying that this is "the [one] standard" to judge a Democratic candidate. You exaggerate. It is one of many standards.

However, the Democrats regularly chewed into Dunbar and Ronstadt during the recent City Council campaign for not running "clean", that is, for not using the publicly-financed system.

When a Democrat has chosen in the past to NOT use this system, one might infer that that Democrat does not support that system. Also, if this Democrat has not shown support for this publicly-financed system at the local level, how strong is this Democrat's foot going to be for standing up in Congress for clean elections/campaign finance reform???2/04/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Ted,
I think there would be many in the federal system that would go clean given the opportunity. I just think anyone that hasn't is more tempted to coruption. I'm not saying Gabby is corupt, just something that concerns me. I agree with the post above, it's the principle that is in question.2/07/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Sorry I did not get online sooner after Eva dropped out, but after spending a week going over the other candidates and their respective strengths and weaknesses, I've decided I'm going to support Patty now. She looks to have the best chance of beating whoever the Republicans nominate (whether it be a Mike Hellon or a Randy Graf-type). She has such a huge lead in the polls, especially now that my Eva has dropped out, and her positives throughout the congressional district among just regular folk I talk to is unmatched by any politician. Even though Eva is supporting her, I think the only way that Gabby wins is by going negative to try to bring Patty back to her polling levels and I hope she does not do that for the sake of the party and for our chance to finally get the seat back.2/01/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Samuel Pearson "Sam" Goddard, Jr., who served one two year term as Governor in the 1960's died this morning at the age of 86. Goddard was an important figure in our state's politics, and not just because of his long tenure as chairman of the state Democratic party. In his single term as governor, he brought civil rights and women's issues forward in a way that no governor before had (and frankly, few since). He also had some big ideas about the structure of state government that he was unable to implement, but the crew of young Democratic governors elected in the 1970's, Bruce Babbitt, Jerry Brown and some guy from Arkansas named Bill Clinton, looked to his ideas for inspiration. Goddard had a deep love for this state, and had an encyclopedic knowledge of our history and geography. I remember him speaking to a picnic at John Pintek's ranch outside of Bisbee, regailing his listeners with the story of how that county's party rescued Conrad Zulick, our state's first Democratic Governor, from a Sonoran prison. The man was passionate about politics, I remember he was still angry about tactics that Paul Fanin used against Roy Elson years after the fact. This came from his deep passion for issues and the people of the state. His speaking skills were honed at the University of Arizona, where he was friends with Mo Udall and Jim McNulty. They used to have a contest to see which of the three of them could speak the longest extemporaneously using only legaleese and saying nothing. Goddard would win every time. Goddard was involved with many charitable causes too, and his stamp can still be seen in Tucson, where he lived prior to being elected. If you ever visit the Unitarian Church on 22nd street, you will still see his name on the main hall.|W|P|113882466786802486|W|P|Samuel Pearson Goddard, Jr.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/02/2006 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I'm sure that most of you who have been in Arizona longer than I have (1998) probably know the answer to this so well that you don't have to post it, but for the education of us newcomers,:

Is Samuel Goddard related to the current Attorney General?2/02/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Tom Prezelski|W|P|Yes. "Terry" is from "territus," latin for "third." Thus, he is Samuel P. Goddard III.2/08/2006 07:55:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|In English, Terry is Sam's son. Great men both....2/01/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I talked to a guy the other day that claims to be a regular reader of this blog, and he asked me a question that led me to ask him, "Didn't you read that on my blog?" "Well, I only read if you are talking about CD 8..." Sheesh... Okay...I suppose I must pander to you people. No appreciation for my art. -sigh- Okay, here is some stuff. Patty Amadeus Gelenberg Weiss announced her congressional bid on Monday over at Palo Verde High School. Message: I went to Palo Verde High School. I did not attend the speech, I read it on her website. It reads well, and given that she was an anchorwoman for nearly 30 years, it is safe to assume that it was well delivered. Something I have found interesting is that she would lay out a problem and say: "That's the problem, what's the solution?" Nice, since it gave her an opporitunity to lay out actual solutions to the problems that she believes our nation faces. To me though, such a "work horse not show horse" sort of slogan only points out her lack of experience actually working on solutions to these problems. I'm sure that somebody will write in saying how her "solutions" were so much boilerplate and "We want specifics..." A couple of pieces of reality: every campaign eventually comes up with position papers full of specifics just for people that want them. Although these can be helpful to show a bit about how a candidate feels about issues, they often are not implimented after victory because of changing circumstances and political reality. This happens to an even greater extent when you are elected as a freshman (freshperson?) in a body of 435 people. This is why I prefer to look at a candidate with a record, so I can see what she has done in the past. One person told me that KGUN reported that Weiss said that she wanted to fix the state's health care system. If this is what Weiss said, it would indicate that she's not well informed about the responsibilities of the US Congress. However, according to the transcript, it isn't what she said:
Let’s look at health care. My husband is a doctor. He provides care every day and he sees how patients struggle to get the care they need. There was a time when Americans could count on employers to provide health coverage. Those days are gone. Fewer than half of Arizonans are insured through their employers – one of the lowest levels in the nation. Even if you have health insurance, you are affected. When you pay your doctor or hospital bill, you’re also paying for those who can’t. That is the problem. What is the solution? We must separate health insurance from employment and make sure every citizen has access to health care. Removing the burden of health coverage from businesses like General Motors will help American companies compete in the global economy, where no other industrialized nation ties health insurance to the workplace.
So, in other words, she was using Arizona as an example rather than saying she would fix Arizona. The fact that she mentioned GM, which has only a small manufacturing presence here, indicates that she knows she's talking about a national issue. So it wasn't Weiss that was misinformed, it was the TV reporter. It shouldn't suprise us given the sorts of people the local stations have hired lately. Remember when they had journalism degrees rather than communication degrees? -sigh- Makes me miss Weiss as a reporter more... Rep. Steve Huffman announced that he will make a bid in the Republican primary. Huffman is farily conservative, he's one of the guys who voted for these silly credits in the ELL bill (which I hope Gabrielle Giffords brings up if he's the nominee), and has mounted an ongoing attack on TUSD's desegregation funding. Even given this, Huffman is not a favorite among the far right; he actually is interested in making friends with Democrats and his veins don't pop out of his neck when he discusses social issues. Also, he married into a family of Democrats. Hispanic ones, even. That ought to make Randy Graf happy. This means that Huffman will not be running against Toni Hellon for the State Senate, but it does mean he will be running against her ex-husband, Mike Hellon, who announced that he will make a go of it last week. I swear, Northwest side Republican politics are so incestious. R-CUBED QUIZ - If he wins, Huffman would be the second Arizona Congressman from Oro Valley. Who was the first? By the way, Graf's supporters are angry with Hellon's characterization of their candidate. Hellon said that any vote for Graf is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker. Almost makes me want to re-register and vote in the Republican primary. Anyhow, this statement generated a letter to the editor:
Mike Hellon's regurgitating the myth that Randy Graf can't win the general election is pure bunk. His assertion tells you two things: Hellon will say anything to win, which gives us a preview of the low, base tactics he'll use during his campaign, and the propaganda campaign is based on the fact that facing Graf is a losing prospect and everyone running against him is afraid to run against him on the issues. Can we all just get along, and leave the smears at home? Jade Stokes Tucson
First thing the guy says is "regurgitating," then wants everyone to get along. I found the name interesting. If this is the same Jade Stokes I think it is, he has no buisiness decrying "smears" or any other "base tactics." This is a guy who has bragged that he will work for any candidate that will pay him. In the 2002 race, he worked for Democrat Elaine Richardson then Republican Al Piña. When Piña dropped out, he jumped to another Republican campaign, Lori Lustig's. When Lustig lost her primary after running a bewildering commercial, he worked for the Pima County Republicans and Republican nominee Ross Hieb. He could often be seen at then-candidate Raúl Grijalva's appearances, sereptitiously making recordings. Shortly before that election, he came to a speech by Pres. Bill Clinton, complete with a a news camera and press credentials. We wondered why KVOA sent two cameras. He was a stringer, but it turns out that he wasn't supposed to be there. Believe me, KVOA was really happy when we informed them that the guy was using their credentials for political purposes. By the way, notice that none of Stokes's candidates managed to win the primary. Alex Rodriguez has a website up now. Enough for today. R-Cubed Quiz Answer: After he remarried, Mo Udall moved to Oro Valley, so that's where he lived towards the end of his congressional career. This also means that Rep. Mark Udall attended Canyon del Oro High School.|W|P|113880710922512936|W|P|CD 8 Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com2/01/2006 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski you are doing a great job. The upcomming races are going to be fun to watch.

question: How many Republicans does it take to enter the CD 8 race as a less conservative alternative to Graf until they split the vote so much that Graf wins ?

I am not sure but it seems like it's getting pretty close to that point.2/01/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Exactly, there are three "moderates" right now, with a candidate and a half that can be called "conservative."2/01/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Wow...that was a long one, Ted! You have been reading too many of my verbose comments...haha.

I also see that Patty Weiss is doing a "whistle-stop" campaign of sorts throughout Southern Arizona AND that she went to visit our U of A College Democrats to watch the State of the Union Address. Weiss is getting active and is looking for primary help.

As I said in a different post, is this an "outside Tucson" strategy? Weiss knows full well that many many Tucsonan Democrats know, like, and are supporting Giffords.

By the way, the College Demos are pretty good volunteers...and I am sure they appreciated the visit this early in the campaign.

Best,

Roger2/01/2006 09:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Dude...don't call them College Democrats...that opens up a whole can of worms that has been going since 1987...
:)2/01/2006 09:18:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous DM3|W|P|Let it be known that UAYD does not endorse during a contested Primary. We have been in touch with each campaign and plan on holding individual events for each.
:)2/01/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Thanks for the heads up about UAYD (Ted and dm3)! Names are certainly important, but:

"The rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Take care,

Roger2/01/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|By the way, the College Demos are pretty good volunteers...and I am sure they appreciated the visit this early in the campaign.

This is the problem with the Old Guard.... they don't look to Young Dems more then low campaign volunteers. FOLKS!!! THEY are the future of the party, look to the Young Dems, they have allot more to offer rather then just being pretty good volunteers.2/01/2006 05:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Point well taken, 'specially since their president is a state party officer.2/01/2006 05:20:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous slim|W|P|"low campaign volunteers"?? What decade are you living in? The volunteers are running the party.2/01/2006 06:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...do not get me wrong, I was not being condescending (or meaning to be). By volunteer I don't necessarily mean stamp-sticking and sign pounding, it can be strategy, advance, media, and more. Athough it would be nice if my students were paid more often when they had a major role. I would argue that they are sometimes much better than the old guard because they have fresh ideas, energy, and frankly know modern campaigning.

Oh...on sign-pounding and stamp-sticking...even on campaigns that I have had a major stake in, I also pounded signs, stuck stamps, and talked to everyone I knew about the candidate. I hate going to some HQs and seeing the strategists and VIPs cavorting in the back and the "volunteers" out front working, sorting, and doing anything they can to help their candidate win. Believe me...you can learn a ton from the people who are sticking the stamps!

Roger2/02/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|An individual YDA Caucus can endorse in there best intrest, only if it is voted on in a sanctioned meeting.2/07/2006 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Two things - a) it wasn't until 1990 that we changed the name to University Democrats and b) it's nice to see from Alex's website that he has Dolores Huerta's endorsement - so much for debating who us the most progressive candidate in the race -it's clearly A-Rod. Maybe that's the real reason Eva dropped out - she got outflanked by Gabby on the right and A-Rod on the left!