3/30/2006 09:10:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Word is out that Zogby will be releasing numbers that show Jim Pederson within five points of Jon Kyl. The trouble is, this is the same methodology that showed former Department of Administration party planner Don Goldwater nearly beating Governor Janet Napolitano a few months ago. I'll see if the Republican bloggers that got so excited about the Goldwater poll tout this one the same way. Spider-sense tells me they won't. But I never got bitten by a radioactive spider, so what would I know?|W|P|114377866364877866|W|P|Zogby Poll Results are Really Accurate, Unless They Aren't|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/31/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have been suprised to see Jon Kyl recently back a "tough enforcement" AND a "guest worker program." Fascinating that he has moved so much and so fast. I bet we are going to see a lot more shifts in good ole Kyl as the election approaches. I think the man is starting to see that this is not a good year for Republicans.

Oh...but I give him props for one thing. He appears to shadow our President on about every policy...and a guest worker program is just another echoing of the Pres.3/31/2006 12:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|So we all question the methodology ... fine. The thing to look at on polls like this however are the trendlines ... and the lines show that Kyl is mid-dive.

I go more into detail on this over on my blog but the short of it is -- if they poll the same way each time, even if you don't like the way they do it you can still look at the poll over time to judge potential changes in public opinion ... and the public finally is starting to know THE OTHER JON and they don't seem to like him.

I think the timing is pretty good for Pederson to nail Kyl something good.3/31/2006 03:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I predict that Kyl will win by more than 8% come November 7.

If you go by the trend then Janet is toast. I am not predicting that, just demonstrating the fallacy of Mr. T's logic.3/30/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Arizona's newest senator, Ed Ableser, was sworn in today. For those that have been following this story, Ableser was picked for the seat over Meg Burton Cahill, the Democratic candidate for that seat. Ableser is a candidate for the House seat that Cahill is abandoning to run for the Senate. Come on, it really isn't that confusing. There have been worries, not particularly well founded, that Ableser is trying to edge out Cahill. I have no reason to think this is true. Cahill is still the candidate for Senate, Ableser is still running for House, and there is no indication that that is going to change. To demonstrate this, Ableser let Cahill sit in his seat before he was sworn in. Ableser wanted to show that he is just keeping it warm for Cahill. I understand that the Democrats laughed, but did anyone happen to see Laura Knaperek's face when that happened? NB - According to the alphabet, Ableser is on the top of the Senate roster, knocking recent appointee Paula Aboud to second place.|W|P|114377767744488221|W|P|Ed Ableser Swearing In|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/30/2006 10:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Nonpartisan|W|P|My take is that the Board of Supervisors decided Cahill already had all the name rec she needs to win the seat on her own, and that by making Ableser a Senator they potentially gave HIM the legitimacy he needs to win the House seat. So, according to this logic, Cahill wins the Senate seat anyway, Ableser does better for the House seat than he would have before (potentially winning in a landslide this time), plus Ableser brings in all those students who will also vote for Cahill and, more importantly, Mitchell. It's actually a brilliant piece of campaign strategy -- and one that makes me seriously reconsider Mitchell's chances against Hayworth.3/31/2006 12:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger the byce man|W|P|Well, that would work, except there are 4 Republican Supervisors and 1 Democrat. So, they may be brilliant strategists, but for the wrong side? I think not. What they did was choose the option that would be the most confusing and weird, hoping that the local dems will implode. They were also doing damage control. Thing is, Meg coming in as an incumbent is horrible for whatever sacrificial lamb they run against her. And remember, they need TWO seats in the Senate and only one in the House.
That being said, this is still a really good opportunity.3/30/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Check out this entry in Wikipedia. Is there a word for your name quickly becoming part of the lexicon too?|W|P|114375521666327186|W|P|My, That Was Quick|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/30/2006 04:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski - I am surprised you do not have a post about the Governor's deal to let the corporate tuition tax credit go through.3/29/2006 08:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I heard an interview on NPR today, it was kinda hectic so I can't remember the program or even who particularly said it. But it was something that I have started to hear on the right, along with the new mugwumps in the press that want everyone to get along. Golly, could people on both sides cool the rhetoric on the immigration debate and stop the name calling? Could this new love of calm, carefully parsed rhetoric have anything to do with the hundreds of thousands of people that were mobilized this weekend against them? So, now that it looks like there is a serious, strong group of people opposed to what they want to do, now they are all in favor of reasoned discussion. I guess telling them where to stick it would be over the top rhetoric, and that just isn't what is good for the nation. Where was this concern when folks like Tomás Tancredo, Russell Pearce and J. D. Hayworth had a virtual monopoly in most of the media to spew all sorts of poorly sourced factoids? Where was this concern when the national media were lionizing groups like the Minutemen? Heck, where was this concern from the media when they themselves were and still are busy pushing bizarre stories about Al Queda cells in Sonora and possible epidemics? (The silliest is Lou Dobbs, who has posited that the Mexican Army could invade. Yes, they could do that, and so could Canada, Cuba and the Bahamas. Maybe the French could even do it from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon.) One interesting Rodney King imitator has been J. D. Hayworth. As quoted on Wactivist, Arizona's next source for limitless hydrogen wants us to dial down the tough talk. Wactivist Concierge Mister T has numerous quotes from his book on his site that show Hayworth may be a little less than sincere in his call for calm. More evidence could be seen on tonight's episode of Rita Cosby: Live and Direct. The fact that Cosby has an hour of time to do whatever it is she does five nights a week demonstrates a rather disturbing lack of standards these days. (I would say "journalistic standards," but calling her a journalist would be like calling me a phlebotomist.) Anyhow, Cosby had Hayworth debating Maxine Waters (more demonstration that folks in the media want everything but calm, reasoned debate). Hayworth alleged that the marchers this weekend were all "illegal aliens" demanding "special rights." Yeah, right, every last one of the tens of thousands marching in Phoenix were illegally here, because when you are underpaid in the shadow economy, you are very well organized and want to be in a public demonstration. Of course, Cosby was right there nodding and agreeing with everything Hayworth said. He also said he was concerned that this "amnesty" bill (which it ain't) would create a two tiered society of impoverished people with little education and no prospects. Uh, congressman, in case you haven't left your tony little neighborhood in Scotsdale, the two-tiered society exists now, largely because of the laws that are in place now. Of course, you could talk to your neighbors' gardeners and maids about it...then you can bust your neighbors because you are so serious about going after employers, right? I gotta say one thing for the level of debate: the so called "pro-immigrant" left may be over the top in calling people racist, but they direct their most serious fire at the folks in power, while the leaders of the anti-immigrant right act like a bunch of second-rate school yard bullies, trying to prove their political manhood by insulting and threatening a weak, vulnerable and already exploited segment of our society.|W|P|114369108069016702|W|P|Now That Y'all Have Found Your Voice, Could We All Cool the Rhetoric?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/29/2006 10:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Screw cooling the rhetoric. Let's savage them like a pack of mad dogs.

But of course in the most loving way.3/30/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger slim|W|P|Tedski -

Your name ID rises some more!


Nice quote.3/30/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh God, I hope the French invade! Maybe then they'll get rid of that abomination known as American cheese.3/29/2006 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has chosen Ed Ableser to be the new Senator in Tempe's District 17. Wactivist reports:
Ableser is NOT going to run for the Senate seat he is keeping warm for Meg Burton-Cahill. He absolutely is running for the House again.
Hmm...sounds strangely like something I heard too... I like Ableser, but I wonder about why he got appointed over Cahill. I can't imagine that the Republicans on the Board of Supervisors would have made a similar pick in a Republican seat. Of course, some bozos are going to complain about his age; I know this because they already have been. Heck, they complained that he even put his name on the list, even though I think it was to bring his name out for the possible House opening. I did that back in January. It didn't work for me either, but I much would have rather it didn't work for me the way it didn't work for Ed. They complained about age when my brother got appointed too. It's funny, no matter how old us "younger" activists get within the party, we are never old enough...and they just keep getting older.|W|P|114368336803577719|W|P|Senator Ed Ableser|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/29/2006 07:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger whoinaz|W|P|they picked Ed for one reason. there are now no incumbents running for an open seat being vacated by a dem in a district the republicans are dying to get control of. if they picked Meg, then Ed would be the heir apparent tobe appointed that seat, hence two incumbents running to reclaim their seats.3/29/2006 09:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|WhoinAz said it perfectly.

They picked Eddie because he's moderate enough for them to stomach and he is not an incumbent. Why appoint somebody whose not running for re-election? They'd just take their orders from the leadership...

Picking Eddie allows some compromise on some of the less contentious issues. Also, the third person was someone from AEA, the AZGOP's 2nd worst enemy. Why would they make an AEA person a Senator?

Eddie really does seem the logical choice from their point of view.

The AGE issue is complete crap. Eddie Ableser defeated a sitting Republican House incumbant last election. He has already proven his mettle.3/29/2006 10:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Does anybody else think that the way we fill legislative vacancies is way too ripe for corruption and partisan inteference?

I wonder how other states do this - becuase I really think ours is very near completely ridiculous.

I mean seriously, our government picks the replacements based on who they can best beat?

In the words of JD Hayworth - that is FUCKED UP.3/30/2006 09:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Phil A. Buster|W|P|Two things:

1) Doyle, the third recommendation, reportedly declined the appointment behind closed doors. Otherwise, I'm quite sure she would have been appointed (as she is not running for office).

If I were the County Attorney, I would have advised that the LD 17 party failed in it's statutory duty to send three names to the Board. All a district party would have to do in the future would be to nominate two unwilling people to the Board to force them to choose their preference, thus cutting the BoS out of the Constitutional role.

2) Mr. T, I've been giving a lot of thought to that lately. I'm familiar with the replacement process of one other state, that being Illinois.

In Cook and DuPage counties (the two biggest counties by far), parties are organized by Township, not legislative district. Let's say a Republican Senator resigns, and his district is within Lyons, Riverside, and Proviso Township. The three Republican party leaders from those townships get together and vote for a replacement; the vote is weighted by the number of Republicans who voted in the primary within that township in the last gubernatorial year.

It is not uncommon for one township to dominate a legislative district, and not uncommon for Township leaders to appoint themselves.

Since Senators and Representatives were once apportioned at the County level (before "One man, one vote" rendered that unconstitutional), it made sense to have the BoS choosing the replacements.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense anymore.3/30/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well as Jack Brown would say

"thats just the way we do things here. If you don't like it, then California is awaiting ya"

This is the best scenario possible as now we have two incumbants in the D17 legislative elections. One is the 900 pound gorilla who has deftly defeated every Republican she has faced.

The other defeated a sitting incumbent simply by out working him and the lack of ethics the imcumbant had; they were so bad that many in the D17 GOP advocated single shotting Laura Knaperak.

"We've seen the end of Thompson. Soon we shall see the end of this insigniciant rebellion"3/29/2006 06:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Senator John Sidney McCain III, Straight Talking, Bipartisan, Moderate and friend to "liberal" members of the media everywhere:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." - As quoted in 2000 in National Review, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and several other publications in February of 2000.
"While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values." - Quote from Liberty University press release, March 28, announcing McCain's commencement speech this year.
|W|P|114364067909782193|W|P|Because Some of You Still Think He's One of Us|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/29/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|There are only two reasons to support a McCain Presidential bid.

1. You really love the Bush policy on Iraq, and you want to see the war continue for at least another four years.

2. If he runs and loses, he may be annoyed enough to announce he is retiring from the Senate, and Janet Napolitano is term limited that same year... and even if he doesn't retire, by that time he will be as 'yesterday' as a "Frampton comes alive" poster, and she'll take him straight up.3/29/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am waiting eagerly for not just McCain's visit to Liberty, but later his visit to Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina.

South Carolina has traditionally been the "gateway to the south" in the Presidential primaries. He lost his bid for the Presidency there before...and it was because of Christian conservatives and the links of Bush to Bob Jones.3/29/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|or you support him cause he brought us some sembelance of campaign finance reform- though it is debatable how effective it has been but at least he tried.

and he is the only sane one up there pushing for real immigration reform.

alongside, i might add, the President.

Its kind of weird to be arrayed against some members of your own party and allied with the President and about a 1\4 of the GOP Senate.3/29/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I see immigration, Tom, as a bit of a cross-cutting social issue, as political scientists call it. It is not as simple as those in Washington who are making policy see. The real split I see right now is between traditional, pro-business Republicans in this state who want and need the labor and those in the party who wish to demonize the people coming across the border and who are here illegal.

You should have heard how uncomfortable Jon Kyl sounded on NPR yesterday...explaining his half-plan...tough tough enforcement and guest worker plan. Playing Solomon in politics only tends to make both sides...unhappy. I would bet that many Republican business types in this state are giving money to any Democrat who is not pro-enforcement against employers.3/29/2006 11:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|hey eli - Frampton rules and is timeless. Can’t argue with the rest of what you said.3/29/2006 11:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|phx kid, Frampton's music may be timeless (maybe), but alas, his hair is not. Saw a poster of him for a show he was doing in Vegas not long ago. I didn't even recognize him.3/29/2006 01:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Yet another exhibit in the case of "Why John McCain should NOT be president"....

Ignoring, for the moment, the extremist positions of Falwell and his ilk, McCain is so desperate to get into the White House he is kissing up to the ones who savaged him in 2000.

Don't like desperately ambitious politicians. And that's why I probably won't vote for Hillary Clinton come the 2008 primary season.3/29/2006 09:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|OK, Phx kid, fine.

How about as 'yesterday' as the Beatles, singing 'Yesterday.'

And I know Frampton is still performing (most of the old performers can get at least a gig in Vegas) but heck, that poster with the shirt off was a '70's classic. Sort of like that old poster of Farrah Fawcett with all the hair that most teenage boys had in their room (Yeah, I had one of those too.)4/02/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I just saw McCain on Meet the Press (Sunday 2nd of April). Russert pretty much nailed him on the "flip-flop" he has made on the Liberty University trip. By the way, he said it is just like visiting any liberal University like the New School in NYC. He doesn't necessarily agree with everything they profess (smile).

Oh...he also said nationally that he does not favor same sex marriage or benefits by saying that he supports the current petition drive for the Amendment here in Arizona.3/28/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is from the Arizona César Chávez Coalition. This weekend's march should be HUGE given what went on this last weekend. Congressman Raúl Grijalva will be there. This is in Spanish and English, but no Polish? I don't feel the love of solidarność.
Dear Sisters and Brothers: In the following weeks, the U.S. Senate will be debating immigration legislation that could impact our nation greatly. This Sunday's César Chávez March for Justice and Peace, in unity with the previous mobilizations around the country (Phoenix, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Georgia, Washington, DC, and others) attempts to educate, mobilize and wake up the "sleeping giant" so that the Senate can pass a comprehensive and just legislation. Special Guest: Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farmworkers Union.
WHO César Chávez Holiday Coalition, with over 35 community organizations WHAT César Chávez March "FOR JUSTICE, FOR PEACE" WHEN Sunday, April 2nd, at 11:30 a.m. WHERE The march will commence at Pueblo High School, 3500 S. 12th Ave (12th Ave. and Ajo Wy) then east on 44th, down on S. 6th Ave, to Rudy Garcia Park (Irvington and 6th Ave.) WHY "Because we want Justice for All" "Because we want an Immigration Reform" "Because a People United, will Never Be Divided" "Because the Time is Now to Unite our Voices as a People" "Because, in Tucson... SI SE PUEDE!"
Queridos Hermanos: En las siguientes semanas, el Senado Estadounidense estará tratando de producir legislación migratoria que podría tener un gran impacto hacia nuestra nación. La marcha César Chávez "POR LA JUSTICIA, POR LA PAZ" del domingo, junto con las previas movilizaciones por toda la nación (Phoenix, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Georgia, y Washington DC, y demás) intenta educar, movilizar, y despertar al "gigante dormido" de nuestro pueblo y simpatizantes para que el Senado apruebe una legislación comprensiva y justa. Invitada especial, Dolores Huerta, co-fundadora de la Unión de Campesinos, directo desde California.
QUIEN La Coalición de César Chávez, junto con 35 organizaciones comunitarias QUÉ Marcha César Chávez "POR LA JUSTICIA, POR LA PAZ" CUANDO Domingo, 2 de abril de 2006 a las 11:30 de la mañana DONDE 3500 S. 12th Ave La Marcha empezará en la Pueblo High School (avenida 12 y Ajo) hacia el parque del rodeo "Rudy Garcia" (Irvington y Avenida 6ta) PORQUÉ "Porque Queremos Justicia Para Todos" "Porque Queremos Una Reforma Migratoria" "Porque el Pueblo Unido, Jamás Será Vencido" "Porque Ahora es Cuando Debemos Unir Nuestras Voces por Nuestra Gente" "Porque, en Tucson... SI SE PUEDE!"
|W|P|114358583136353875|W|P|Chávez March This Weekend|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/28/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I have read that Cesar Chavez fought against illegal immigration because it undermined the work he was doing trying to unionize farmworkers and undercut wages for legal workers.

Is this true?3/28/2006 04:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger KR|W|P|You must be watching Lou Dobbs too. That's what he was just arguing about.3/28/2006 10:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I think boredinaz is correct, at it was true at one time--
According to the University of California, Davis, California; Rural Migration News--


"Most farm labor leaders until the 1980s opposed illegal immigration and endorsed employer sanctions. During the 1950s and 1960s, Ernesto Galarza, Julian Samora, and Cesar Chavez called for a beefed up Border Patrol and stiff employer sanctions to stop illegal immigration."

"The UFW changed its position on immigration in the 1980s. During
the late 1960s and early 1970s, the UFW charged that illegal
immigrant workers were an obstacle to unionizing farm workers. The
UFW through the early 1980s testified in support of employer
sanctions to reduce illegal immigration."

"The UFW has consistently opposed temporary worker programs, but in
the mid-1980s began to oppose employer sanctions on the grounds that they increased discrimination against Hispanics. The UFW, unlike most AFL-CIO unions, favored NAFTA, and developed a cooperative health insurance program with the Mexican government under which UFW members can have their health insurance continued while they are in Mexico."

"Immigration marked the rise and fall of the UFW. In 1980, the UFW
asked for another 40 percent increase. After a bitter strike that saw growers turn to labor contractors who organized crews of often illegal workers to be strike breakers, the UFW won an Pyrrhic
victory--many companies that agreed to UFW demands went out of
business. UFW membership fell from a peak of perhaps 60,000 in the
late 1970s to as few as 5,000 in the early 1990s."3/28/2006 11:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It really disturbs me the level to which the right has ratcheted this debate.

I don't want to see people who we have no knowledge of entering the country. And it is certainly true that we can be doing a much better job than we have been securing our borders. And there are many proposals out there for how we could do this.

But listen to the rhetoric of those on the right. Making living here a felony? Building a wall around the country (remember when that was a figure of speech instead of a real proposal?) Changing the Constitution to make people who are born and live their whole lives in America non-citizens?

These kinds of narrow-minded populist proposals may win a few votes for Republicans, but in the long run they damage the country, especially if any of them actually become laws.3/28/2006 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|It would be particularly hypocritical/unfair for the U.S. to "criminalize" the 11-12 million (?) undocumented immigrants working/living here, given that the U.S. businesses have taken advantage of undocumented immigrants for decades, and given that the government has always known that undocumented immigrants have been working here for decades and has chosen to not enforce against these businesses.3/29/2006 12:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|cc burro - spoken like a true googlian... but sometimes one needs to go beyond academia accounts: The UFW was mainly opposed to 'esquiroles'(scabs) breaking picket lines. Unfortunately, these esquiroles were coming from Mexico.

The UFW has changed their views on immigration, as did the AFL-CIO. So you see, we all live and learn (as did some Repubs who voted along w/Senate immigration bill).

Btw, Tedski, Mr. Grijalva's campaign site is UP!! Just in case you want to use this link better www.grijalvaforcongress.com3/29/2006 08:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am completely fascinated by the backlash that is occuring to these proposals. The activism, the counter-mobilization of voices against those who are clearly using race and images of poor border crossers to anger and put fear into Americans.

The biggest fear of some Republicans who run businesses are that this source of labor will dry up. The issue cuts across the party. The bigger fear to Republican operatives is of a mass registration and backlash by Hispanic-Latin Americans. It appears that just such a backlash is occurring and remember, it one thing that led to the downfall of the Republican party in California after Prop. 187.3/29/2006 08:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|MEXILINA--I agree--I'm sure they would be against any scabs--homegrown or imported. As the quote indicates, UFW changed their stance over time.

ALL workers in the U.S. need to have full labor protections/rights.3/29/2006 09:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|cc, thanks for the info and the link.

kr, I don't watch Lou Dobbs but thanks for proving my next point.

eli has a good point about the level of debate on this issue. I have been reading a lot of blogs on this issue lately. People are making ridiculous assumptions about others based on where they appear to stand on the issue. Case in point: I ask a legitimate question about the history of the farm workers movement and "kr" assumes I'm getting my information from an obnoxious TV commentator who has made his entire show a continuous railing against illegal immigrants (even though I said I "read" it not "saw" or "heard"). See what I mean? There can be no legitimate discussion of the ramifications of illegal immigration and the proposed solutions to the problem so long as people refuse to listen to any other points of view.

Then you have those who seem content to have this issue become needlessly entangled in racial politics. Both sides are trying to use race as a means to score points. The true racists promote fear about the "changing culture" and some so-called immigrant leaders call anyone who questions them "anti-minority." It's truly ridiculous.3/29/2006 07:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|BOREDINAZ--Totally true. I've done a lot of research on the immigration issue and seen what you say in the writings of the various advocacy groups. Also, there is a lot of ignorance and sticking-heads-in-the-sand about real concerns re the different policies being proposed.3/30/2006 10:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NC Yellow Dog|W|P|wow, Eli-good to see you around!

NC Yellow Dog3/27/2006 06:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of my correspondents noted that I have given a link to Bill Montgomery's campaign website, but not to Terry Goddard's campaign website. I was giving a link to his official site though, which, of course Montgomery doesn't have. I don't anticipate haing to add one anytime soon either. I have added both Goddard links to my "Links" list on the side bar. Sheesh.|W|P|114346753547190701|W|P|I Relent|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/27/2006 01:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|where's the link to either of Janet's sites?

Huh, Tedski?


;-)3/27/2006 02:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Naw...I'm still mad that she turned me down for a date back in '97.

Just kidding...I'll add one when I get home. I just plum forgot.3/27/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|All that drinking you been doing Ted.3/27/2006 05:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Polish President, labor leader and Nobel laureate Lech Wałęsa spoke at Regis University, a Jesuit liberal arts college in Colorado. I still consider Wałęsa a hero despite some of his statements in office near the end of his term. He issued a warning that our nation is now being resented around the world, even in the so-called "New Europe" that the Neo-Consenvatives think would be naturally grateful to us. He has not decided not to meet with President Bush. Considering that Wałęsa is a high profile former head of state this can be considered a snub. Given that Wałęsa was prone to embarassing unfamiliarity with his native language and often was too friendly with the European far right, you'd think that the two of them would be better pals. If they've even alienated admirers of our country like Wałęsa, what chance to we have with the rest of the world?|W|P|114346427317638009|W|P|Don't Forget Poland|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/28/2006 12:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am going to invent a language composed of simple letters and vowels and that is easy for me to pronounce. I am tired of getting yelled at by Jesse for talking like Harry Truman. I got my lexicon from books I read, not from listening to great speakers...garrrr!3/28/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|What...it's pronounced Va-wen-sa...just like it's spelled.

Sheesh, some people.3/26/2006 01:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Rep. Greg Patterson, the "Espresso Pundit," has an ongoing thesis that the Hispanic community is about to, en masse, become a bullet-proof Republican consituency. For example, one of the pieces of proof he offered was that an employee at Stan Barnes's firm was Hispanic. The first thing I thought of when I saw that one was that I have a friend at work that is an Evangelical that is a hard core John Edwards fanatic. This must mean that the Evangelicals are about to become solidly Democratic for the next two and a half centuries. His latest piece of evidence is that an organization called the Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council endorsed Jon Kyl last week. On the surface, a Hispanic organization endorsing a Republican Senator might be a big deal. However, digging around a little bit would show that this is no suprise what so ever, and means a heck of a lot less than people like Patterson would think. Well, it really doesn't even take that much digging. A visit to the website has this, right there on the front page:
The Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council was formed in 2005 by a group of active community leaders. Partipants are recruited individually with a focus on hispanic Republicans and Independents. The goal of the organization is to educate the hispanic community about the shared values of the Republican party and to encourage hispanic Republican leaders to run for office.
So, um, the group is a Republican organization. Not just an organization that happens to have a lot of Republicans, but one that wants to elect Republicans. They even have those little flag draped elephants on their brochure. A Republican party organization endorsed a Republican Senator who has a pretty strong lead in the polls. Stop the presses. Anyone who thinks that the formation of this organization is some sort of "sea change" hasn't been too observant of our local politics. There has always been a significant number of Hispanics in the Republican party here. Tucson's only Hispanic mayor was a fellow named Esteban Ochoa, a Republican. The folks that formed the Republican party in Arizona Territory were, hard as it is to believe now, Hispanic Republicans in Tucson. Many of those families, such as the Jacome and Laos families, are still Republican and form a significant part of what is sometimes refered to as la crema, a sort of unofficial Hispanic gentry in Tucson. Every Hispanic family, even the most politically minded liberal ones, has at least one Republican. This would only indicate a major change in politics if it was something new, but it has been going on for generations. The interesting thing is that in the past, Republican arguments about Hispanics changing parties have centered around social issues. The SAHLC makes no mention of social issues on their site, and their pro-Kyl press release made only a cursory mention of "common sense values," whatever the heck that means. Their board consists mostly of business people who "values voters" in the Republican party would regard as part of the problem in their party. One of the people on their board is a supporter of Raúl Grijalva. I guess this wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that she's the chairperson of the organization, Lea Márquez Peterson. I'm not sure what that says, either that the Republicans have such total schlubs running in CD 7 that not even their own activists support them, or that maybe this "earthquake" won't happen for a long time. By the way, Márquez Peterson's family, despite being in that "bullet proof" Republican group: small buisinesspeople, are Democrats. (Full disclosure: Márquez Peterson was active with SUAB when I was with that organization at the U of A, and I've played soccer with her brother, Edmund Márquez. I'm a bit of a hack, so I probably tripped him more than once.) Another person on the board is Lillian Lopez-Grant. Lopez-Grant has been involved in Republican politics for years in this town, so she isn't exacly an indicator of anything "new." However, she is probably the only person on that board that has anything approaching organizational muscle. But, even she has been dissed by the local Republican establishment, most recently by Councilmember Kathleen Dunbar in the last election. As much as the Republicans like to talk about inclusion, things like this are also noticed by the community. Even though you have candidates like Dunbar who refuse to campaign in Hispanic neighborhoods, the biggest impediment for organizations like the SAHLC is their own Republican primary voters. Take the 2004 primary in CD 7 for example. You had Lou Muñoz, a local businessman, against Joe Sweeney, a racist and certifiable moron. So, instead of voting for the level headed candidate, CD 7 Republicans chose, by a two-to-one margin, the race baiting Sweeney. What can one do but ask if people wanted to vote for Sweeney because he was a racist, or against Muñoz because of his race? One can also look at the Republican primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2002, where Tom Horne ran a campaign that asked if Latino Republican incumbent Jaime Molera could be trusted to make sure that kids learned English. He was rewarded with a victory. But, keep up the wishful thinking.|W|P|114340832645073594|W|P|Wow, A Republican Group Endorsed Kyl. Golly, I Guess We Should Just Quit Now.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/26/2006 03:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|My favorite espresso theory is that Catholics will be voting en masse for Republicans because the Church came out in support of the Traditional Marriage Amendment.

The Church has also been very vocally pro-immigrant and, at least the Phoenix bishop has written to Catholic parishoners lecturing on their duty to support migrants. (I believe they also helped with last Friday's march to Kyl's office.)

Under Patterson's theory, there should be an en masse movement of Catholics toward the Democratic Party based on this directive from on high.

But there won't be ... for either issue. Because this is America and there are very few Roman Catholics here; just millions of Cafeteria Catholics.

Most people's minds are already made up on these issues and whatever Father soandso or Bishop whatshisname says, parishoners will vote their conscious, not their religion.3/26/2006 08:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Jim Pederson can't buy this election Ted. It's really fun to watch you dems get your hopes all up, and then poof.....YOU LOSE!

Forgetaboutit!!!!3/26/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|And then when we win, do we get to feed you crow?

:)3/27/2006 03:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Great post, Ted. I was contemplating a fisking of this astro-turf endorsement myself, but I'm glad to see you've done such a devastating job of it.

I've got to get over to Espresso more often, the place is a rich vein of material. I just posted a bit on how conservatives have lobotomies on the subject of deficits based on an Espresso post.3/27/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger espressopundit|W|P|I don't think Hispanics will be voting for Republicans en masse, but I think that even moderate inroads will be enough to tip elections.3/27/2006 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|whatever they might gain thru the gay marriage issue, they'll lose thru the immigration issue.3/27/2006 02:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, you may be correct that the Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council is a Republican front group. But in the same vain the Christian Alliance for Progress is a front group of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran liberals pretending to be Christians.

Their values page starts out with Compassion and Care for “The Least of These” Then they go on to voice support for abortion on their issue page. They call it “Sanctity of Childbearing Decisions” Who is the “least of these” if not an unborn human baby. She has a heartbeat, eyes, nose, ears, face but no voice in our legal system.

They state, “each woman’s body belongs to herself.” Two mistakes here, the unborn child inside her is not her body. The DNA is separate and distinct. It is contained in her body but not part of it. Next point is a true Christian would believe that her life and therefore body belongs to God.

So it looks like liberals also use front-groups.3/27/2006 04:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|"But in the same vain the Christian Alliance for Progress is a front group of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran liberals pretending to be Christians."

So, I guess you are saying that anyone who is liberal can't be Christian? Pretty insulting, don't you think? I could go through all the ways that conservatives haven't exactly been the best at upholding Christian ideals (two examples: the application of the Death Penalty and their enthusiasm for torturing Iraqi prisoners), but there probably wouldn't be much point in that.

Why do you see the mote in your neighbor's eye, but fail to see the beam in your own?3/27/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski I would be happy to do away with the death penalty right now as part of a comprehensive change that also respects innocent, unborn humans.

You are correct; torture is not a Christian value. That is one of the reasons why I do not support it.

A great example of a liberal Christian view is that of the Catholic Church. I do not agree with every position they take but I greatly respect the consistency of their reasoning (especial on the Sanctity of Life.)3/25/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The District 17 Democratic Committee met to select their three nominees to replace Harry Mitchell. The three were picked with very little fanfare or constrenation, which should suprise anyone that has been reading the Democratic blogs lately.
  • Meg Burton Cahill: Current House member and candidate for the Senate seat that Harry was planning on retiring from at the end of this year anyhow.
  • Eddie Ableser: Democratic nominee for the house in 2004, and also a candidate this year. Does he keep running for the house if he's in the senate?
  • Sharon Doyle: Cahill's treasurer for her campaigns. She has vowed not to run for re-election if she gets appointed.
I know nothing about the dynamics on the board (I have enough trouble with Pima County's Board), so someone else will have to clue me in on what happens next.|W|P|114332426637760512|W|P|Replacing Harry|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/25/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Eddie will not run for the Senate seat. He will run for his house seat. It really is not even debatable except by those in D17 that are angry that Eddie Ableser is the "annointed one"

anything that will split Meg from Eddie is in their favor, so they have been stirring all this crap.3/25/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|my guess is the Bd of Supervisors picks Doyle b/c she's not running for anything and the Rep. supervisors don't want help either Ableser or Cahill.3/27/2006 03:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I think the PCs of 17 did a fantastic job of gauging the GOP dominated Board. Their choice make it nearly impossible for the 'copa Supes to screw with us. They almost have to pick Boyle, which is the LD17 Dems want. Despite any of the normal discontents of intra-party politics, the PCs of 17 did a great job.3/25/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|From the an article in the latest Tucson Weekly:
He discussed the issue with Democratic state Rep. Tom Prezelski at a Knockout Pills show, in what is likely a rare instance of a politician meeting up with a constituent at a punk-rock concert.
See, you just don't get that sort of grass roots activity at a Toby Keith or Billy Joel concert. It also means constituent contact is short, loud, and in simple declarative sentences.|W|P|114329540064736425|W|P|You Start Electing Those Gen Xers, and This Is What Happens|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/24/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I am still on Wesley Clark's various e-mail lists, and I got a notice a couple of weeks ago about Iraqi/Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC. The group is an outgrowth of Operation Truth, and its board includes Clark, Sen. Bob Kerrey and Paul Hackett. I first heard of Operation Truth at the Democratic Convention, when I was approached by one of their members. He handed me a card and told me what the group was about. He said that he actually was a Republican but wanted to make sure that Democrats knew what was really going on in Iraq. He talked about the lack of equipment, but also about plans that the White House had to close Veterans hospitals and also about the difficulty of recieving mental health care after separation. My father is a veteran, so I try to keep up with these issues and I knew about a lot of it. But, it still makes me sad, and I was impressed that a vet, so soon after coming back from the war, was willing to travel the country to tell folks about what was happening to his brothers and sisters. The group has some rather strict requirements for being endorsed. Our own Jeff Latas doesn't qualify because he didn't serve in the current Iraq campaign; they require a Iraq Campaign medal, and the veterans of the 1991 conflict have a Kuwait Liberation medal. They take pains to say that they will not consider party affiliation, but they want their candidates to support a specific agenda:
  • Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater.
  • Mandatory full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  • Thorough investigation of the failure to provide adequate armor for our soldiers, and that those responsible are held accountable.
  • An increase in the size of the active component army by eight units of action (brigades) and doubling the size of our Special Forces units in order to help relieve our over-extended army. (NOTE: This is not an increase in the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq).
  • Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict.
  • TRICARE (health care) for all members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. As of July 2004, 20% of National Guardsmen lacked healthcare. Currently, Guardsmen and Reservists can buy into TRICARE if they are unemployed or are not covered by their employer. IAVA PAC supports extending TRICARE coverage to all Guardsmen and Reservists.
  • Lowering the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55.
  • An immediate 5% pay increase for our Armed Forces.
Doesn't exactly sound like the sort of thing a lot of Republican candidates are too excited about signing on for. Their candidates include recent primary victor Tammy Duckworth, Joe Sestak, who is running against administration apologist Curt Weldon and Andrew Horne, running against the always-vulnerable-but-wins-anyway Ann Northrop. The site still lists North Carolina's Tim Dunn, who recently dropped out of his race. I wonder how a Republican candidate continues to justify the current war plan in Iraq (let alone the war itself) when confronted with someone that was actually there and can speak the truth about what a disaster it is. Of course, actually serving in the war is apparently not a qualification to speak about it. Heck, they will actually argue that staying at home and impugning the rest of our patriotism is just like being there. I'd like to see them pull that one against double amputee Duckworth, or even someone whose family has suffered like Latas.|W|P|114321020641086179|W|P|IAVA PAC|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/24/2006 01:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger T. Stephen Cody|W|P|Thanks, Tedski. The long-term progressive strategy that IMHO works best is to "Speak Truth to Power". The advantage of a relevent military background is in being closer to the truth about the war and its consequences. Thanks for pointing out Jeff Latas' uniquely relevent experience to represent AZ CD8 on this most crucial issue.3/24/2006 06:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Jeff Latas may not be considered by some PACs to be a veteran of the Iraq war, but...

He did serve FIVE tours of duty in 10 years in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait, flying many missions over Iraq each time. He was fired upon during every tour, and every missile and bullet originated in Iraq.

And his son, who was only four or five when he left for Desert Storm, served on the ground in Iraq. Only a couple of current members of Congress can say the same. They are so ready to send other people's children, but not their own.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Nobody can call Latas cut-and-run. He went back five times, and then reluctantly sent his son. He's done more than most Americans to fight this war, and he holds the moral high ground when he says it's time to leave.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.3/24/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azpoljunkie|W|P|Yes, clearly Latas is the only candidate who can win the general election in this "leans republican" district. He has appeal due to his military service to the center and right and he will take on anyone who calls him unpatriotic or soft on defense. This would be so rediculous it would be laughable, but they'll try it. The question I have is why people think other Dem candidates are can win this when Karl Rove himself has said that the Reps will run on national security...again.3/25/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ralph Landin|W|P|I've heard him say it, "there are only a handful of Congressional members in federally elected office (5) that have children that serve in the service" no one in this race can say that with dignity. He not only has a son who had a relapse in Iraq and is considered by his father a "Hero" and will join that few in congresses with children in the service, but he served too!

It's time we start flushing out those that lack the conviction of Jeff Latas. He will make things happen and that is what we want. I'm mad as hell, are YOU!

Jeff Latas is the only one we should even consider now. No one has better chances to win this election than Jeff. Rove can try, and will succeed with the rest of our candidates, but they fear the worst, LATAS!

Jeff Latas brings the progressives into this race. Unlike Duckworth, who was placed in IL-06 by the DCCC/DLC, the Latas’ did this by with no help from the party, the rich, or DC players. I respected that and so did others who are volunteering because they know the truth. No one in this region has gained so much in so little time on the political playing field. Just think what he will do for us if he gets in. Think about it. He has only been doing the politic thing for ONLY 6 MONTHS! The other candidates can only dream of such success.

He had no name recognition, no money, no connections. And now look at the power this campaign has exercised. Just think what will come when he gets the name out and the money in. I like Jeff, he is real and the meaning behind the man is genuine.

Everyone think about this, he still runs with his only son now getting a bone marrow transplant and he’s doing it for YOU!3/25/2006 11:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Azpoljunkie:

"Yes, clearly Latas is the only candidate who can win the general election in this "leans republican" district."

I would like to point out that this is a pretty bold statement. Latas is not the ONLY candidate who can win the general election. I think any of our candidates can win this race in the fall because the Republicans have so thoroughly botched the war and a host of other issues. Any candidate who looks reasonable on this war and thoughtful about it could beat any Republican on this issue. It is their mess, but remember, we will have to clean it up with excellent public policy.

In addition to the advantages that Jeff Latas has, it is going to take broad support, political experience, name recognition, and money to win...others have some pretty important advantages in these categories.

"He has appeal due to his military service to the center and right and he will take on anyone who calls him unpatriotic or soft on defense. This would be so rediculous it would be laughable, but they'll try it."

It certainly would be ridiculous to attack him on his service, his record, on his knowledge of what war is like. It WON'T be ridiculous for them to attack ideas though. You can attack the message without attacking the messenger.

But this is a very different claim that I must must answer:

"The question I have is why people think other Dem candidates can win this when Karl Rove himself has said that the Reps will run on national security...again."

Any of our candidates can EASILY refute the mess that the White House and Republicans got us into have an implemented. I could, Ted could, any of us here could. Any of our candidates can...and will be preferable to voters over republicans who created this mess.

Last, be aware that the Rove and the Republican machine will be...AND ARE...running on local issues. National issues just don't work for them. In incumbent races they will focus on "loving my congressman not congress"...like Kyl is. Any of our candidates can attack on the war, but they will also be forced to deal with immigration and a host of other issues in a district that still leans Republican and independent.

Cheers to you!

Roger3/25/2006 01:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cojo|W|P|Is this your attempt to paint Latas as one issue?

I suggest before you do go to www.jefflatas.com.3/25/2006 11:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Since you put down the web address I went to the Latas web site. You were correct he has more than one issue. He is upset about 90,000 horses being slaughtered per year. He also says, “abortion should be rare” but support Roe v. Wade which gave us 1.29 million dead unborn babies in 2002 (see www.guttmacher.org)

Save the horses, kill the humans. Great wide-ranging platform.3/26/2006 01:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|PHX KID--It seems to me that you didn't read much of Jeff Latas' issues section. It seems to me that it is YOU who is the one-issue person.

Why not have a multi-prong approach and support measures that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies [and, thus, abortion]?3/26/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I did read his whole issue section and there was a lot there. But the contrast between the concern for horses’ lives but not unborn humans is amazing.

You cannot be for reducing abortions and still support Roe (and I am assuming also Doe v. Bolton.) Those two decisions have resulted in about 1,000,000 abortions per year since 1973. That is a large number of lives and blows a hole a mile wide in the notion that the Democrats are the party of compassion. Compassion for whom? Certainly not the unborn.

What if I am a one-issue person? I have every right to speak to one issue. I am not the one who attacked Jeff for being one issue anyway.3/26/2006 10:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Dear Cojo:

No it is not my attempt to paint Jeff as a one issue candidate. This entire post and stream is about national security and is what Jeff was being touted for to the exclusion of the other candidates by commenters here.

I am not trying to paint him in anyway. His issues stands are up on his website and that is what Jeff believes.3/26/2006 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|PHX KID--Irony. The Republican party is the party that cuts food, medical care, housing, energy assistance aid for the poor [which includes a LOT of kids]. Re abortion--My speculation is that the concern of abortion rights supporters is compassion/concern for the mother-to-be. Better yet to support responsible sex education, access to contraceptives, and research on safer contraception. Obviously the best contraceptive is abstinence, but it is totally unrealistic to depend on that as the only method available for not getting pregnant.3/26/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|You are correct, Republicans are not perfect and do not always support consistant positions or perfect solutions. I am not speaking as a Republican on this issue, many in my party even get this one wrong, but as a human being. But the position of the Democratic Party on human life is really sad.

There has been pretty easy access to contraception for a few decades now and the abortion rate is still over a million a year. Do you really seriously think someone is being kept from using contraception? Just as an example; Wal-Mart has a open display of several types of condoms in their personal care section. Out in the open for everyone to see and purchase. No reasonable person could say that the citizens of the U.S. are being deprived of access to contraception but did not want.

The flaw of contraception is the illusion that the sex act is for a purpose other than reproduction. We humans can do a lot to keep pregnancies from happening but sometimes the little guy gets through to the egg. If the couple had not intended to create a child but did it is sadly too easy a step for many to decide to terminate what they themselves have created.

If Democrats cared a whit about life and mothers they would propose a more socially compassionate approach to unwanted pregnancies at the same time as pushing for a modification of the extremely permisive regimes of Roe and Doe that place an almost zero value on the life of an unborn child. Instead many Democrats want more social spending but no change to Roe or Doe.3/27/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Evan Hutchison|W|P|As Political Director for IAVA PAC, and a native of Arizona's 8th District, I want to express my admiration and excitement over Latas' candidacy. I certainly wish he fell within our endorsement requirements, but it is important for us as an organization to adhere to our founding principles and maintain our focus on Vets returning from the conflicts spawned by the Bush administration. We respect and admire all Vets who have served the U.S., but our founders (who served in OIF) felt the need to give voice to this particular segment of Vets. Thanks for covering our efforts.

-Evan Hutchison4/02/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DownWithTyranny|W|P|There's no conflict there. I'm sure every single IAVA supporter in the 8th congressional district will also be a Latas supporter. I was completely unaware of IAVA when Down With Tyranny endorsed Joe Sestak and we're thinking about doing the same thing for Latas.3/23/2006 10:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm hearing now that there is a group of three consultants that are lobbying for Cox Cable in an attempt to deregulate them, allowing them to do things such as get rid of public access channels. Two of the consultants are Larry Hecker and Dan Eckstrom. Both are Democrats but have always had a pro-business bent and do this sort of thing for a living. The third, the third is the big suprise. The third is former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy. Tom Volgy? Why? Volgy was the one who forced Cox to have the public access channels in the first place. Volgy has always regarded himself as a small "d" democrat who saw things like public access, campaign finance reform and neighborhood associations as necessary to maintain civic life. Why the heck would he go against his own excellent record on behalf of an out of state corporation that reported $6.4 Billion in revenues last year? Please, someone tell me that this isn't true. I wouldn't even say anything about it, but had another elected official or former elected official did something like this, Volgy would have been the first one to call them on it. Rightly so.|W|P|114317917968779303|W|P|Say It Ain't So, Tom...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/24/2006 12:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|"I'm hearing" isn't much of a source, Ted. I know that sometimes sources prefer to remain on background, but this is a fairly damaging accusation in some circles (mine included) to accept it without any verification.

Show me somethin', brother.3/24/2006 12:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I think this must be the source. I'm frankly not sure whether I believe Tom disclaimers or not. In either case, it might be a remunerative gig, but it might ending up costing Tom some credibility.

http://www.azstarnet.com/altsn/snredesign/relatedarticles/1182093/24/2006 01:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Michael--I couldn't get the link to go to an article. Could you put down the link again?3/24/2006 07:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger espressopundit|W|P|Good Catch Tedski.

Folks can Google "Volgy" and "Cox" for the full article.

"Cox hired former Pima County Supervisor Dan Eckstrom and former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy to help with its strategy."3/23/2006 07:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gabrielle Giffords sent out a press release that basically says, "Mr. Vice President, I know it is vital to the national security of our country that you entertain our region's Thurston Howells with your famous quick wit, but could you take some time to come down to the border and, I dunno, take a good look? Thanks." Of course, Cheney will never do it. He'd rather fly in, make a speech to the check writers and fly out. This is his version of keeping in touch with our community. Heaven forbid. He may actually, I don't know, meet a real Tucsonense who might have a problem with administration policy. He might find out where administration policies have failed our community. I remember when I had a post a while back about the union endorsements that Patty Weiss and Giffords had recieved, and one of my frequent Republican posters wanted to note how much money Cheney had made in a previous visit for Jon Kyl. So, I wrote about how organizations representing thousands of working people were supporting various candidates, and the response is "look how many rich people like my guy." I'm sure some Republican will spin this Cheney visit as Kyl taking Tucson "seriously." Well, I guess after twelve years in office, it's a good time to start. His taking our community "seriously" seems to consist of high dollar fundraisers on the foothills and quick stops to locales near I-10. The first event that was supposed to show that he was taking us yokels seriously featured locals such as Christine Toretti-Olson, the wanna be carpetbagger candidate who is still an active member of the Pennsylvania Republican party. Sorry, man, you gotta do better than that.|W|P|114316886685779204|W|P|Giffords Calls Cheney Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/23/2006 08:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|AZ enviro. and human rights groups have also asked for a direct mtg. with Kyl and tour of border, which is likely to be denied.

Kyl and Cheney are like peas in a pod.

Giffords is wise and bold to call out the VP during his overnight money trip to Tucson.3/23/2006 08:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Gabby calling out the vice prez?!?

Be still my heart. Couldn't be politics, could it??3/23/2006 09:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|There is nothing to spin. The VP came into town and raised a lot of money for Kyl. I did not make it to the dinner but good for everyone who did.

If Robert Reich comes into town is he going to call me up and get my opinion on paying into a Social Security system that is schedule to be bankrupt right before I turn 65? Does Tom Daschle want to hear what I think of his obstructionist, anti-gun record in the U.S. Senate?

It cuts both ways.

If Cheney had visited the border he would have been criticized for making a serious issue into a photo-op. Why should Cheney bother, he will get bad press and protesters where ever he goes. Why not fly into a Democratic city, go eat his steak in the ritzy part of town and then leave. Makes sense to me.

I do not think administration policies have failed our community. Pima County is humming right along. The federal government is mostly responsible for national defense and foreign policy not solving every challenge facing Tucson. I thought Rio Nuevo was going to do that.

Who said Kyl is taking Tucson seriously. The event was held at La Paloma. Not even in city limits but in the Foothills and only minutes from wealthy Republicans in the Northeast and Northwest. It’s not like Pederson is going to come into town and hold a fundraiser at the local Waffle House. This is what serious politicians do; they raise money, a lot of money.

My original point was not to brag but to point out that Pederson was going to have a very tough time of it. I also wanted to point out the Cheney, while down in the polls, was still quite useful.

What I have written here are just plain facts. Not much partisan spin especial when push comes to shove and Giffords is running against Graf she will do the same thing Kyl just did.3/23/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Reich spent two days in Southern Arizona. Yes, he raised money, but he also participated in public events in three different towns (events which included audience questions). I'd say that is a bit different than parachuting into a town, speaking to the landed gentry, then beating a path to the airport while escorted by the Secret Service.

And George, yes, its politics. So what?3/23/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Well good for Reich. He stayed overnight and took some questions. I doubt that I am alone in saying that his visit, like that of Cheney’s had absolutely not effect on my life nor did I expect it to.

Maybe Cheney did not stay long because he is on to his next big fundraiser for some other right-wing Republican. How dare he use his time like that. Scandalous!

While everyone is visiting the border they should measure the amount of drugs that are coming across and that would keep coming even if we have a guest worker program.3/23/2006 11:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Phx Kid -
Perhaps the US should do something to limit the demand of these said drugs.

Would the traffickers bringing them across if they knew no one was going to buy them?3/24/2006 07:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Good point anonymous but until the demand side is fixed it sure is hard to enjoy the great public lands that we have along the border because of both the safety concerns and the trash that now litters some of the beautiful ecosystems.

But when Gabby is in office I am sure Reich will come back for a few days and fix all that by listening to our concerns. I can’t wait. Only if Cheney had just visited the border with Kyl they could have made such a difference.3/24/2006 08:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Ted--a little of a thin skin for your preferred candidate?3/24/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|phx kid -

It's not really the same thing, comparing Cheney w/ Reich and Daschle.

Cheney is the vice president of the United States and has over 200 million constituents, including each and every one of the people in the border towns of Arizona. He has a duty to serve them.

Reich and Daschle are no longer in office and have no constituency, ergo no duty. So, even if they didn't take the time to visit the border there's nothing to be said about it. They are private citizens and it's their choice.

Cheney has a duty as a leader of this country, and especially the federal government that has so thouroughly failed us on the issue of border security, to take the time to find out what's really going on down there and listen to his constituents' request for assistance.3/24/2006 09:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|You have a good point but all elected officials, from Kolbe to Grijalva, have failed us on the border issue. I cannot believe that Cheney is not aware of the border problem. A visit to the frontera by the VP would have been symbolic at best.

The great majority of elected officials have been unable to agree that a border should be something other than an imaginary line for people to freely cross.3/24/2006 05:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|From an old newspaper:

DASH FOR CASH: A Whole Lot of People for Grijalva Congressional Committee must raise a whole lot more money if they are to lift Raúl Grijalva to Washington from Arizona's new 7th Congressional District.

Although the Democratic primary includes seven candidates, it'll likely come down to a fight between Grijalva and state Sen. Elaine Richardson.

Grijalva's $33,782 was just one-fourth of the $131,017 Richardson raised. She was also in superior shape, despite multiple personnel shifts, with $70,000 on hand, compared with Grijalva's $28,000, according to reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission.

Grijalva has never trailed in money or votes in his four runs for the Pima County Board of Supervisors. He also never failed in his three races for the Tucson Unified School District Board.

"I don't think cash on hand translates to votes at the ballot box," Grijalva said. "We anticipate that we are going to be outspent. Two to one does not concern us, 3-1 does."

Richardson jump-started her campaign with money from EMILY's List, the national women's political action committee.

Mark Fleisher, the carpetbagging former chairman of the state Democratic Party, pulled in $47,818. That included $1,000 from his own pocket and just one incursion into Tucson, a $500 from Ray Villa. Bill Bradley, the former great Knick forward, New Jersey senator and unsuccessful candidate for the 2000 Democratic nomination for president, gave Fleisher $500. Fleisher spent $33,430, leaving $14,387 at the end of March.

Jesus Romo, the ultra-left and first-time candidate, reported $38,942. Romo, a labor leader lawyer-turned who specializes in Mexican immigration and Border Patrol enforcement, was once a close Grijalva ally.

Jaime Gutierrez, former state senator and community relations vice president at the University of Arizona, reported $45,255, expenses of just $11,244 and a balance of $34,011. Gutierrez, who represented until 1992 the West Side district that Richardson now commands, backed off a challenge to Grijalva for the Board of Supervisors post.

Another former state lawmaker, Luis Gonzales, on leave as a California tribal executive, reported $17,344, including $13,000 he put in.

Ross Hieb, a retired Marine and Yuma City Council member, collected $16,000 to go with the $5,482 he put in himself for his Republican run.

And Yuma flight attendant Lisa Ann Otondo reported $9,468, including $2,568 from her own pocket.

The campaign seems a bargain in the inaugural run for District 7, which includes south, central and west Tucson as well as western Pima County, Nogales, Yuma, Quartzite and Maricopa County farming communities. For example, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, an East Valley Republican, reported $812,000 in contributions and $606,000 on hand at the end of March.

Grijalva left his $54,600-a-year county job representing District 5 in February and has been seeking money at a frenetic pace. Though he and his advisers are spinning the lag on a late start, Grijalva admittedly pressed hard through March calling those he had chronically opposed to try to boost what he told potential donors was an important report to chill opposition.

He'll likely have a sizeable bump from the labor-oriented campaign party held April 7.

Tom Chandler, the aging Tucson lawyer and political and judicial power broker, is Grijalva's treasurer. He gave Grijalva $1,000. Art Chapa, a Tucson lawyer, former member of the Arizona Board of Regents and a popular, personable political fundraiser, gave Grijalva $1,000. He is on Grijalva's team, along with ally Democratic Supervisor Dan Eckstrom.

Grijalva has also tapped some big-name builders, which is surprising given the political fatwah against him issued by the development community. He raked in $1,000 each from Fairfield and Canoa Ranch developers Lowell Williamson and son David Williamson. He also took in $1,000 from Canoa's lead planner, Frank Thomson. Grijalva's nine-year-battle over Canoa, a 6,000-acre spread south of Green Valley, ended with greatly reduced housing, commercial and golf features and the county's $6.6 million purchase of more than 80 percent of the ranch. Fairfield paid less than half of that to acquire Canoa

"That fight's over," Grijalva said of his acceptance of the Fairfield money.

Richardson has tapped developers who are eager to see Grijalva go down. She got $500 from Peter Aronoff of AF Sterling; $500 from John Bremond, CEO of KB Homes; $1,000 from John Wesley Miller; and $250 from Steve Craddock, head of US Home in Tucson. Car dealer and Republican stalwart Jim Click Jr. and his wife Vicki Click gave Richardson $1,000 apiece.

Staff costs ate up $39,500 in the early months. Laura Penny, a longtime Richardson ally who was the chief spokesperson for former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan, was paid $17,500 in seven installments, according to the disclosure. Penny has left the campaign and Richardson has brought in Eugenia Bas-Isaac, whose good-news media enterprise failed in the mid-1990s, and paid her $6,250. Victor Gomez, now working on the state Senate campaign of nomadic Gabrielle Giffords, was paid $10,200. And Judy Nagle, Richardson's treasurer, received $5,100.

http://tinyurl.com/nfvvx3/25/2006 12:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I guess, then, that the big difference in this campaign, than Richardson's is that Grijalva has endorsed Gabby Giffords.3/27/2006 09:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|The biggest difference is that Elaine Richardson raised four times as much money as Raul in the first filing period.

Check out the incestuous relationships between big Rs, the Giffords team, and Elaine's people.

Its deju vu all over again.3/27/2006 09:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|They are completely different contexts, times, and backers, Self Appointed.

You must admit that any striking similarities go out the window because the very person that had the machine and progressive backing that you are talking about was Raul Grijalva...and again...he has endorsed Gabby Giffords.

Either you are truly and vastly underestimating the progressive support that Gabby has...OR you are trying to turn that support to other candidates.3/27/2006 11:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|She is as popular as her internal polls suggest.3/29/2006 08:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yep...anon...and she is going to be even more so when the financial reports come and she is seen as one of the only viable candidates in the race. One of the few who has lined up support across the party here in Arizona and nationally where she will be working as well. One of the few in the race who has the financial strength to run a district-wide campaign against a Republican machine who will want this district.

Both Weiss and Latas are going to have to compete hard to be the alternative. They are likely to run an anti-establishment campaign, attack Gabby as the front-runner, and ultimately, if successful, will gladly and openly accept the same suppor that they attacked Gabby for having now.3/29/2006 08:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|KRALMAJALES--From what I've seen, both Latas and Weiss are running issue-based campaigns. There are many of us that ARE against that part of the "establishment" which is anti-democratic, elitist, beholden to financial interests, promoters of the status quo [which is pretty damn bad right now]. John Kerry in his 2004 election talked about not rewarding "Benedict Arnold" corporations who purposely move their corporate headquarters to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying taxes. Others have spoken against the numerous tax loopholes/earmarks that various corporate interests have gotten over the years. What will it take to fix this situation? My assumption is that a lot of these interests pour money into these campaigns.4/01/2006 04:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|When will we see Gabby's voting record?

Where is it? How does one find it?3/23/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Senator Harry Mitchell has resigned his seat so he can devote his full time to running against J. D. Hayworth. And no one, no one told me that this was about to happen. You people, my humble and loyal readers, have failed me. I don't know what I am going to do. NB - Note that above I did not link to Hayworth's irritating congressional site. If you really want to hear Hayworth creepily welcoming you to his site, click here.|W|P|114316314518167609|W|P|And of Course, I'm the Last to Know|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/23/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|I love it that you constantly use the picture from the state press for Harry Mitchell. That was my event and it was supposed to be with Ambassador Joe Wilson but he got stuck in Chicago in snow, so Harry Mitchell filled in.

Shows you how much of a fan I have been of his. I filled an ambassador's speach in with him.3/23/2006 10:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I sent you an email regarding Mitchell's resignation the second I found out about it myself. So none of this crap about your loyal readers not filling you in.

Keep it up and you might not get a word by word description of the meeting to nominate his replacement. :p3/24/2006 08:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|...and I never mentioned it because you told me that you weren't supposed to talk about the legislature anymore.3/24/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Shane Wikfors|W|P|We broke the story yesterday as we watched the resignation take place on the floor of the State Senate. C'mon Ted, please tell us that you have time to watch the live feed at the capitol.


Your loyal yet friendly opposition :)

Shane3/23/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I wrote yesterday about C. J. Karamargin leaving the Arizona Daily Star. I neglected to mention another reporter that left, border beat reporter Michael Marizco. Marizco left the Star in December; he told me in an e-mail that he left to write a book (they couldn't just give him a leave or sabatical for that?). I imagine that he had had the same frustrations that many other reporters who have left recently have had. The Star was willing to let Marizco go even though he had won awards (including one given by the corporation that owns the Star for a series on people who smuggle and exploit children) and is covering probably the most important ongoing story for this region of the country. The local television stations have been giving some coverage of border issues, but it tends to give stories so sensationalistic as to be at best useless or at worst dangerous. A hardworking reporter for the area's largest daily would have been a great counterweight to this. I suppose that the professionals that run the Star understand something about quality journalism that a humble amateur like me doesn't. Anyhow, Marizco has set up a blog called Border Reporter. He continues to do freelance work (such as this article in the Tucson Weekly) and it is worth checking out.|W|P|114312206341479415|W|P|Another New Blog|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/22/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As reported earlier on this here blog, C. J. Karamargin is leaving the Arizona Daily Star and moving to the Tucson Citizen. He will not be covering politics for them, but will be doing "features." Ironically, Karamargin started at the Citizen as a features writer, but left when there was an exodous from that paper in 2000 and 2001. Karamargin now seems to be part of an exodous from the Star, with reporters like Mitch Tobin also gone. I wasn't always happy with Karamargin's reporting. After a while, I started wondering how much of the lack of political coverage in our morning daily was him, and how much of it was shortsighted editors. In general, our local media likes to pretend they live in a world where politics simply doesn't exist. For example, the State of the State address, where the Governor announced new immigration policy and her budget, didn't merit front page coverage. That can't be blamed on Karamargin, that's an editorial decision. It tells you an awful lot about how important the Star's editors regard stories about politics and public policy. The story that made the front page that day was yet another story about the then ongoing search for a new University of Arizona president. The story took up even more room since it included pictures and capsule biographies of the various candidates. The pictures and fully fleshed biographies could also be found elsewhere in the paper, which means that rather than giving the State of the State story prominence, they chose to be redundant. Karamargin's last few weeks at the paper had him ensconsed in Phoenix covering the legislature. This wouldn't have been much of a problem, except that he was supposed to be covering local politics too. The biggest political story this year has to be the CD 8 race. Hard to cover that one from Phoenix. What folks at the papers will tell you is that political stories don't sell papers. That may very well be true, but given the erosion in newspaper readership, I don't think it can be argued that whatever it is they are trying to do is selling papers either. As old fashioned as it is to talk about a company's responsibility to a community, a city's daily newspaper should see it as its job to cover local politics, no matter how boring they think it is. What could be more important than informing citizens how their taxes are being spent and what is being done by public officials in their name? Interestingly, the Citizen has been getting better lately. Their coverage of border issues has been excellent (the Star's border reporter recently quit too), and they have had a few shining moments. For example, they actually sent a reporter to Chapel Hill to find out a little background about the newly selected U of A president. The Citizen, with a smaller staff and not as much money thought this was important, and the Star didn't think that this was all that important. We are lucky to have two papers, our big brother up the road only has one daily. I would think that two papers would lead to reporters scrambling to one-up each other, but somehow it hasn't. The Star, being the biggest paper in Southern Arizona and our state's first daily, should own certain issues, like the border. Instead, they seem to be satisfied with covering nothing of any sort of importance.|W|P|114306746131039131|W|P|C. J. Moves to Citizen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/22/2006 09:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Ted-First a point of clairification: The Valley of the Smog has two dailies. The Arizona Repulsive and the East Valley Tribune.

I don't blame C.J. for his political coverage. Let's put the blame squarely on the editors of the dailies down here in Tucson. They are the one's who can put a reporter on a beat and tell them how much to cover and how often.

On my blog site www.gilamosterville.blogspot.com I have placed a link to the Washington Post for good political coverage. I enjoy my trips to DC waking up in the morning and picking up the WaPo and reading a real newspaper.

I would honestly think that both the Star and the Citizen would hide their faces in shame knowing that the Tucson Weekly's junior grade hack can outscoop them on the political beat. Shameful.

I want to warn many of you out there that the new owners of the Star-Lee Enterprises is notoriously right wing and I would expect nothing less than a sharp right turn coming up soon. You may argue that they are already down this road..but they still run Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman.3/22/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Hey Ted,

You going to tell the blog world your running for LD28?
Did you already do that?

I heard rumors your running.3/22/2006 11:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We also have the New Times even if that is not a daily but it does cover more local political stuff...

And it is "you are" not your.3/23/2006 12:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, I heard the same thing. Are you planning a run for the legislature? I would try and find a right-wing, pro-life extreme social conservative Republican to run against you but since it is District 28 I won’t waste my time.

Good luck. We will miss the blog if you are forced to give it up.3/23/2006 07:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with George, Ted, and everyone else here about local and state political coverage. I also read the Washington Post and New York Times when I have time.

Also, the state and local legislative and council coverage was FAR better in Georgia, Virginia, and especially good in West Virginia. Not that anyone has any reason to here, but the West Virginia Gazette is probably the finest political coverage I have ever seen in a state paper.

Last, I detect a change in the hard-hitting coverage of the Tucson Weekly. I know it changed hands but it seems much much more moderate and even rather friendly to the current city and county government...unlike most independent weekly's who stir the pot a bit.3/23/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GTK|W|P|I have only recently begun to read CJs political notebook, but I always found it interesting, informative and well-written. It is a shame he will not be around to continue writting it this year, with all crazy politcs going on.
The editors made a mistake in letting him go. But what do you expect from a paper that has grown increasingly irrelevent?3/21/2006 10:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Mayor Tom Volgy announced his support for CD 8 Democratic Candidate Patty Weiss yesterday. In a statement released by Weiss's campaign, he named her support for Tucson's campaign financing system and willingness to use it as a national model as one of his chief reasons for his endorsement. Volgy's loss in the 2003 mayor's race occurred because East side Democrats didn't vote for him. Guess which part of town forms the bulk of Democratic votes in CD 8? Like Weiss, Volgy lives a few blocks outside of the district. I don't think it is that big a deal really, but everybody else seems to like to point that one out. Other former councilmembers seem to have also picked horses. Former councilmember Molly McKasson is holding a "house party" for Jeff Latas. An e-mail that announced the party named McKasson's respect for Latas's military career as one of her reasons for supporting him. If you don't find this ironic, you don't know McKasson. Former councilmember Chuck Ford was spotted at a labor rally for Gabrielle Giffords that starred Robert Reich.|W|P|114300566137015973|W|P|Volgy Announces Support for Patty Weiss|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/21/2006 11:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger CD 8 Democratic Voter|W|P|Very interesting…..

What about Congressman Grijalva? He resides in District 7 right, and is her big name supporter?
I wonder how he would do on the East Side, Cochise County etc?

By the way, on Giffords’ website:
Only 3 of the top 12 endorsements she has listed reside in District 8. (In the order on her website as of 11:30 PM March 21, 2006)

Her biggest Name Support doesn’t even reside in ARIZONA! (Daschle)

Its interesting the Giffords Campaign is more concerned about $$$ and endorsements rather then issues and solutions. You can’t seem to find where exactly the campaign stands on the issues.3/22/2006 12:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Yes. It is funny how TEDSKI sees irony in the other campaigns whereas he doesn't see [or rather, point out]some of the irony in the Giffords campaign.

"Like Weiss, Volgy lives a few blocks outside of the district. I don't think it is that big a deal really, but everybody else seems to like to point that one out."
TEDSKI, please, take responsibility for what you say. Very wimpy/weak. And it's not as though Weiss lives in Phoenix and is a carpetbagger. She's been a part of this community for a LONG time. Also, if you don't think it is a big deal, then why are you bringing it up [again]?3/22/2006 12:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD 8 Democratic Voter|W|P|Least we not forget the biggest irony: Gifford’s repeated marking off Republican on her registration card in the 80's and 90's every time she updated her registration until she wanted to run for State Legislature and changed to be a Democrat in 1999.

I would take a Life Long Democrat 8 blocks from CD8 (who happened to reside in CD8 - Former CD5, and before that CD2 until a line on a map moved a few blocks over)
Also, I would take a Military Veteran ANY DAY over a Republican-Turned Democrat.3/22/2006 01:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Giffords' party switching was insincere.

May MANY disaffected moderate Republicans vote with and join the Democratic party!

Latas '06!3/22/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Once again, I get called "whimpy" because I don't agree with a poster. What would be whimpy is for me to change my opinions only so I agree with you.

I think the whole residency thing is silly. I was pointing it out only to be silly. I guess I should mark my sentences in some fancy type so nobody misses it. Of couse, clearly marking what I write as snarky doesn't seem to help either.3/22/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I find it almost eerie in the parallels between Gabby's campaign and Elaine Richardson's campaign in 2002.

Eerie.3/22/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nothing wrong with having people out of the district endorse you, nothing wrong with getting endorsements, definitely nothing wrong with raising money given that this district will cost an estimated $2 Million plus. You have to admit that it is a strength and that it does show a measure of support when a candidate can raise money and when a candidate gets endorsements from leaders and groups.

I think it is so important that as the other candidates get these things they will "tout" them as Patty is doing...3/22/2006 09:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|What I find eerie is that the Latas supporters continue to attack Gabby as elitist, wishy-washy, a Republican turned Democrat, and that supporters are even recording her speeches so that they can show her inconsistency.

THAT...is eerie...and even a bit dirty.

Last, I am surprised that none of you are going after Weiss. Given that Giffords is a evil, pro-business "centrist", it appears that Weiss is the most likely candidate to steal solid liberal votes from your candidate.

Just an observation since there have been so many about Giffords.3/22/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Tedski, do cd8 democratic voter and cd burro come from the same IP address?3/22/2006 09:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|ahem. Can anyone please explain this east side/west side dichotomy for the ignorant phoenicians?

thank you.3/22/2006 09:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Sorry bored...I will try...and the long time Tucsonans can correct me. The east-side of town in Tucson makes up a large part of CD8. In the city limits of Tucson, it is the strongest of the Republican strongholds. Although, in the last city election, they apparently didn't vote their numbers and the electoral behemoth of the Democratic party awakened.3/22/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|MR. T IN AZ--fyi--My name is Gretchen Wagenseller. I don't know who "cd 8 democratic voter" is.

TEDSKI--I called you wimpy not because I disagreed with what you said, but rather because you were bringing up Weiss' out-of-district residence up, while at the same time making an excuse for the remark and distancing yourself from what you were saying--"I don't think it is that big deal really, but everybody else seems to like to point that one out."

KRALMAJALES--I agree. The DEMs are going to need money [including lots of money from outside CD 8], endorsements, but, most of all, grassroots army to beat the REP in the fall.

I know that the Latas campaign does NOT support nasty/unsubstantiated criticisms of the other candidates. Also, I question whether some of these ANONYMOUSES are Latas supporters since what they are mainly accomplishing is making themselves look ignorant,ranting, etc.and by association, the candidate that people think they are supporting.3/22/2006 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|A good way to look at the numbers is by County Supervisor Districts. In District 4 (east side) the numbers of registered votes are 37,076 Dem/48,541 Rep/30,000 other. In District 5 (Central Tucson and the west side) the numbers are 40,717 Dem/14,854 Rep/24,000 other.

A lot of Democratic voters live in the Supervisor District 5 but are not in CD8, while most, if not all, of Supervisor District 4 is in CD8.3/22/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|muchos gracias, kralmajales3/22/2006 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Gretchen:

Well said...and interesting point...about Anons being Latas supporters. Could be republican dirty tricksters. The only person that I can see who has anything to gain from a Giffords and Latas fight is Weiss...and actually, I think I got cd 8 democratic voter very wrong...a post way way down in another line of Ted's has him/her pretty married to Weiss.

Nice job with the numbers, phxkid!3/22/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well as someone who worked for Tom Volgy in the 2003 race, the reason he lost was because he tried to partisan-size the race and fell back on the proven failed tactic of just turning out the base in a non-partisan election. IE: we won a majority of the democratic voters, lost the vast majority of the republican and independent voters and basically lost on the margin of those democratic voters that switched sides and if he had instead focused on door knocking and persuasion he could have eeked it out but choose not to.

So I woudln't say he is wimpy or unpopular as much as unwise and out of touch of how your average voter feels about him and their every day life and what they want government to do for them.

Still, i agree with Ted that it is indeed "interesting"

this reactionary response from Weis supporters is a little silly in all. Giffords def has the broad based national support but you can either bitch, whine and cry over spilled milk or you can do what Grijalva did and beat them on the ground.3/23/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Volgy is a tool. When I was a UA student, I took a poli sci class from him. I wouldn't place ANY weight behind ANYTHING he said. No, I didn't receive a bad grade from him, so this isn't bitterness.3/23/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well, NAR, let's face it, you aren't exactly a highly targeted voter in this prmary, are you?3/23/2006 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Endorsements are overrated.

Only a few of the endorsers can actually deliver more than a dozen votes each.

Most of the endorsers depend on friends, volunteers, and staff to get out the vote.

They have to be motivated to do that.

Most professional politicians are too busy raising money to get out the vote.

For that, they need to depend their unnamed volunteers and less on the endorsers.

Some endorsements have negative drag on election day.

Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha make the cashbox ring, but they can drive away voters.

Volgy's endorsement is of little consequence one way or the other.

He is now a paid lobbyist for Cox Cable, and he helped dismantle the public access of TCCC that he helped create.3/23/2006 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|All good points...

However, endorsements do give the appearance that the candidate is recognized,

the candidate can rely on the name recognition of others to boost their name recognition,

that person can campaign for them and with them to turn out crowds,

they can turnover their contact list and funder list too them...and even raise funds,

and they can even bring out political machines of volunteers.

Some endorsers and endorsements have more of these things and some have less though.

Finally, endorsements can breed endorsements.

So they do matter...they don't necessarily bring out masses of voters, but they do provide legitimacy at times.

Finally, endorsements never seem to matter much to the candidates that DONT have them. Strange.3/23/2006 06:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Kralmajales--How true. That applies for all campaign assets.3/23/2006 10:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|I remember all the endorsements Tom Volgy, Elaine Richards, George Cunningham and Mary Judge Ryan had on election day.

Randy Graf didn't need endorsements to nearly upset a well financed campaign.

Clean Elections candidates win all the time without endorsements.

Truth is, most local campaigns outside of the metro districts usually run without endorsements, websites, TV ads, or much radio.

The lists are actually for sale, or can be culled by skillful database research.

An endorser can't motivate a politcal machine of volunteers, unless the volunteers are paid, owe the endorser a favor.... or like the candidate.

You can lead a hack to_____ but you can't make them ________.3/25/2006 08:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|I can't belive the apologists for Giffords. Her SWITCH was ONLY SIX YEARS AGO.
All the inside baseball on this blog is amazing...
You're all forgetting: THE issue isn't whether Raul was stupid enough to get behind Giffords too early and that he's saving face now. THE issue isn't whether the Dems should get behind the biggest fundraiser. THE ISSUE is taking the House (and in a long-shot the Senate) from the GOP. The only SURE-FIRE way to do that is to vote for the Dem who can easily beat any R who runs, and that is Weiss.3/25/2006 08:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/26/2006 10:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Tooblue4U:

I can't believe that you call Giffords supporters "apologists"...the truth is that people like her, like her experience, they KNOW her, and they know what they are getting with her. An excellent public servant who has really done nothing to any of you, but represent you in our State Senate.

I also can't believe that you folks keep coming after her when she proves successful at something...and Ted trumpets it. Patty Weiss is who you all should be worrying about for a lot of reasons. Similar issues stances...name recognition..and also "fighting the party" and running an "outsider campaign."

But, hey, the more you come after Giffords, the more you raise her name recognition in other parts of the district...and the more you alienate people who might be in a position to help your candidate later...should he win the primary.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader:

Graf came close...but not close enough in the primary because extremists in his party were unhappy with his moderate stances on the issues.

I hope you are not implying that endorsements for Giffords and Weiss mean no organization. I don't know Patty's situation, but Giffords has a pretty massive list of loyal volunteers (yes...unpaid).3/21/2006 06:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It looks as though Arizona Daily Star political reporter C. J. Karamargin has left his position. No details on this yet. Film at eleven.|W|P|114299118481299222|W|P|C. J. Karamargin Leaves Star|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/21/2006 07:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, dear.

Where I live we don't see much of the Daily Star but I much prefer it to the Republic and make a point of reading it on those rare occasions when I have an opportunity to.

Any word on where he is going?3/21/2006 06:41:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|You may remember an entry I wrote on Bill Montgomery a few weeks back. I am definitely not a supporter of his, and I made that clear in the entry. Montgomery has written to me, here are his comments:
I know you referenced responding to my e-mail but, unfortunately, I did not receive it. I actually wrote you because I believe that the blogosphere is just as valid a communication medium as “old media” used to be and I enjoyed reading your blog. As for prosecuting employers for hiring illegal immigrants, there’s no safe harbor in my candidacy or service as Attorney General. My reference to partnering with employers is to insure that the majority who follow the law are not saddled with undue regulatory burdens that drive up the cost of doing business which, ultimately, is borne by consumers. Right now, we do pay $3 for a head of lettuce – the difference shows up in increased costs for our healthcare, education, and criminal justice systems. I’d like to see use of a biometric card for more reliable verification of employment eligibility and, once we eliminate excuses for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, they will be just as much in my sights as the coyotes (with or without lobbyists). As far as experience, I’ll gladly match my time as a prosecutor with my opponent’s and leadership lessons learned in and out of the Army, let alone actual time spent working as a lawyer. I prosecuted several hundred felony matters and appeared in nearly 1,000 cases for the citizens of Maricopa County in the nearly four years I had the pleasure of working at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Also, unlike some prosecutors who are just looking for trial experience before moving off to practice criminal defense, I begrudgingly left so my wife could stay home with our kids. Unfortunately, that was short lived since my Mom was then diagnosed with lung cancer. I set up my own firm to give me the flexibility to care for her and still bring in some income. Since then, though, my practice has been overwhelmingly in litigating on behalf of crime victims and safeguarding their rights under Arizona’s Victim’s Bill of rights. Last point: “tweety bird” – that’s bit pejorative. Nonetheless, if you love the representation we’re getting from the incumbent AG, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Take care, Bill Montgomery
I'm glad he made it clear that he wants to prosecute coyotes. However, I am always amazed that small government Republicans, who seem to think that a simple background check to make sure that a felon can't buy firearm is tantamount to fascism, would support a system of "identity cards" similar to something you'd find in Czechoslovakia circa 1972 or Vichy France. Every job I have ever had to apply for involved me filling out an I-9. The employer had to verify my eligibility with already available paperwork. This is why I don't buy the excuse that employers can't check their employees, and also why I don't think we need to take that system and add yet another layer of bureaucracy and government control. Interestingly, he says that he doesn't want to burden employers with more responsibilities. His plan sounds, at best, a transfer of those responsibilities to employees, who probably don't have office managers and assistants to handle such things. Montgomery, from what I understand, ably served in the Army and ought to be commended for that. I am not sure that his experience there necesarilly translates into being a good Attorney General. Since he would be replacing Terry Goddard, he needs to tell us why he wouldn't only be adequate, but what would make him a better Attorney General. What decisions has Goddard made that he doesn't agree with? Who has Goddard gone after that he wouldn't have? Payday lenders? Polluters? People who scam the elderly? Warren Jeffs? I didn't make the "Tweety Bird" comment. This wouldn't be the first time I got blamed for something that one of my readers posted.|W|P|114294993350302710|W|P|A Reply from Bill Montgomery|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/21/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I just love it when the baby lawyers tout their "appearance" in hundreds or thousands of cases. LOL! What does that mean? In the case of someone who prosecuted at MCAO, it means several hundred of those "appearances" were for cases at the preliminary hearing stage in justice courts for simple matters like drug charges and car burglaries. The courtroom experience is very limited and easy. That's why they start the baby prosecutors off in those courts.

Then, after they've shown they can shepard cases through that initial stage of prosecution (and maybe even take a misdemeanor DUI or two to trial in justice court), they are moved to the trial bureaus where they get to keep those lower class felony cases to prosecute in superior court for trial or plea. After gaining some experience doing trials, they might get to go to one of the major felony units. As I understand it, Montgomery never did any significant time in a major felony bureau - if he was there at all. And there's not much to speak of in the way of trial experience. Probably why he didn't mention any in his letter to Tedski.

My favorite part of this though was this quote I’ll gladly match my time as a prosecutor with my opponent’s and leadership lessons learned in and out of the Army, let alone actual time spent working as a lawyer Well, I'd like to see that because Goddard has far more experience as a prosecutor and a leader both in and out of the Navy and Navy Reserves.

Nice try, though, kid.3/21/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/21/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, heck, quit picking on the guy. He's out there to fill a spot on the ballot, he knows that, and he has about as much chance of winning this election as there is of there being a tornado in Phoenix.3/21/2006 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|When I live near Shea and Scottsdale Road in the 90's there actually was a tornado in the area.3/21/2006 02:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|and two years ago, a lawyer with even less experience than Montgomery won the election for Maricopa County Attorney over a much more experienced candidate.

Sh-- happens.3/21/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

OK, he has less chance than that. Maybe I should have said he has as much chance as there being a blizzard in July in Phoenix.3/20/2006 09:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our last huge wave of anti-immigrant hysteria resulted in the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. The act set quotas on European immigrants, and prohibited immigrants from India and East Asia all together. Historians believe that the act was prompted by a wave of anti-semitism and the so-called "red scare." In some confused minds, any Jewish or Eastern European immigrant was a potential bolshevik agitator. Interestingly, the act set no quotas on Latin American immigrants. I'll leave the irony up to y'all. I am on a listserv for Polish Americans. I got a copy of an article from New American Media on Polish immigrant workers. The anti-immigrant sentiment is making life tough for them and many are choosing to stay away from our country all together, going to friendlier countries in Western Europe. Maybe its because I am of mixed heritage it is easier for me to see the two struggles as the same. It's too bad that so many people whose families were immigrants only a couple of generations ago can't see it that way.|W|P|114291635399591363|W|P|A Couple of Not Necessarilly Related Items on Immigration|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/20/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Isaac Asimov had the best quote I've ever seen on that law. He wrote once, that that was the year that 'the Golden Door slammed shut.'3/21/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I bet that red scare was more about businesses not willing to deal with the unions. When I was reading on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire they mention how a lot of union people were immigrants. Businesses generally hate unions so it would not surprise me.

I also wonder how much that affected what happened in the 1930s and the Jews who were trying to get out of Europe.3/20/2006 07:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|You might say "Say it isn't so!" but I say, "I told you so." One of my ongoing frustrations when talking to Democratic activists around the country is their ongoing infatuation with John McCain. "Oh, you are so lucky to have him there," or "I'd vote for him if I lived in Arizona." Somehow, they equated his personal animus for the President (which only rarely resulted in votes against administration policy) and his zeal for campaign finance reform (which always seemed to increase when it came to taking on unions) with being an actual liberal, or at the very least a moderate. Well, the man who back in 2000 said here in my very own city that he wants to be "president in the best way and not the worst way," has completely thrown in with the pod people. According to Josh Marshall's TPM Muckraker, McCain's Straight Talk PAC has hired Terry Nelson. Nelson not only worked for Bush's 2000 campaign, but is tied in with Tom Delay's money laundering scheme. "Reformer with Results" my half-Mexican behind. While my friends with stars in their eyes were thinking of McCain the reformer, we who have been following his career were thinking of the McCain that was the only senator not to return the money from Charles Keating, the McCain that used his office to carry out grudges against moderate Republicans and non-fawning reporters in the 1990s, and the McCain who was so partisan that he was almost ready to tank our state's CAP money in an effort to embarass Governor Rose Mofford. What we are seeing now is not a "new" McCain, but rather McCain out of disguise.|W|P|114291098563368382|W|P|Just Reverting Back to Form|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/20/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|You will be calling Sen. McCain....President McCain in 2009!
Get used to it Teddy....Nice ring to it...President John McCain!!!3/20/2006 09:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Amen, Tedski.

McCain is a glory hog, and still a conservative on everything that matters. God help us all if the man ever becomes the President of the United States.

The good news is that he is also a fool. Last year he made a Faustian deal with Karl Rove and the rest of the brain trust of the Republican party to go out and campaign for the President in return for whatever they promised him. Not hard to figure out what they promised him, just think about what he wants that they could offer.

But like a stupid mule that you can dangle a carrot in front of and then jerk it away at the last moment, the expected party support for McCain in 2008 won't materialize. There are two reasons for this: 1) they are more Machiavellian than he is, and they don't trust him, so they will push for someone more malleable, and 2) even if they did back him, the Republican party is starting to fractionate and the support of the Bush squad probably wouldn't be enough to snarf the nomination anyway.

The religious and neo-conservatives now dominate the Republican party, and the only way I can see them nominating McCain is if things look so bad for their party by 2008 that they expect to get beat real bad, then they may send him out to be their sacrificial 'Bob Dole.'

But if there is any doubt about McCain, just point out the company he is keeping nowadays: IRI a supposedly 'nonpartisan' (MY ass) organization put together by the neocons to 'monitor elections' (as opposed to the Carter institute or the U.N.) around the world.

Here are some members of their board:

John McCain, chairman.

one other sitting Senator and two sitting Congressmen-- including Jim Kolbe-- and all are Republicans.

Lawrence Eagleburger
Frank Fahrenkopf
Jeanne Kirkpatrick
Brent Scowcroft

and an assortment of other Republican party hacks, CEO's and you get the idea.

But not a Democrat to be seen. And McCain isn't just a member, he is the chairman of the board.

McCain is old. McCain is up in 2010. By then he will either have become President or tried and failed (most probable). I suspect he'd be thinking retirement. Oh, and Janet is term limited in 2010. Confluence of the stars?3/20/2006 10:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have watched Presidential primaries for years. I will never forget how the "straight talk express" was derailed when it headed into South Carolina. Christian conservatives spanked him and hard...

So, I ask, how well "moderate" McCain get through the all too important southern Republican primaries?

Answer A: He will become as conservative as they are.

Answer B: He already is as conservative as they are.3/21/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|McCain will never be the GOP nominee, despite his exertions to once again re-invent himself. The red-meat dogmatists distrust him because of McCain-Feingold, his lack of total fealty to the NRA, his unwillingness to drill for oil in ANWR and his numerous attacks the "religious right" in 2000.

I agree that he is neither a moderate or a "straight talker," but he is what passes for both in today's GOP. Who in prominence is to the left of him in the national party? Mentioning Arnold or Giuliani doesn't count because they have even less of a chance to be on a national ticket due to their apostasy on abortion and gay rights.

As someone who WAS a Republican in 2000 and DID vote for McCain in that year's primaries, you can add me to the list of people who now feel duped, but perhaps that is more my fault than it is McCain's. After all, Tedski points out many (but not all) of his pre-2000 antics that should have made me and others more skeptical at that time.

George Allen or someone of his ilk will be the GOP nominee in 2008, just as sure as Randy Graf will win the Republican nod in CD8 this year. The so-called moderates will get hosed on both counts. Hopefully, they will then have time and cause to wonder why they let their former attack dogs and hatchet men on the right take over control of their party.3/21/2006 07:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Great points Rex! (and I also was a Republican for a long time)...

It will be interesting to see if he can re-position himself with the right for the primaries...especially those southern ones. Iowa and NH tended to give him a lift before, but then that road to South Carolina, and thereafter, became a minefield for him. I see him working now to get in with the right, but still...look what happened in that Tennessee straw poll with Frist.

It is a long time off, but I think Rex and I are going to be joined by a lot of moderate republicans who may not switch to Democrats, but who will not support the Republican party. If so, who will be left? The Graf supporters, the Munsil supporters, the Goulds, the Harpers, etc.

I am not sure if this will last until 2008 though...that is a long way off, but I think moderates are going to stay home and even cross parties in the general after their moderate candidates in the R party are out of the race.3/21/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|okay. i can't believe no one has said yet b/c it's so obvious, so let me get it out of the way.

Caption to the photo accompanying this post: "I wish I knew how to quit you!"3/21/2006 11:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahahahahahaha! Perfect caption!3/22/2006 09:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|McCain has demeaned himself by allowing himself to be used by Bush. I think he's going to have to sell his soul [and sell-out the independents who have supported him] to get this nomination. I wonder what he's going to say when the Focus on the Family group asks him whether he has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior???3/23/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hell...Gretchen...I know what he is going to say...


Roger3/23/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Have you been watching West Wing this year? Remember what happened to Vinick... Totally realistic.3/23/2006 07:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|What, is McCain going to grievously injure his shakin' hand?

:)3/24/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|[laughter] :) Can you really get a broken hand from having it shaken too much???

I was referring to Vinick during the Republican primary last year (?)when his evangelical opponent and the media were asking him about his churchgoing [or lack of], and he and his campaign staff were all worried about this. Vinick ultimately decided to NOT pander and NOT pretend he was something that he was not [i.e., religious churchgoer]. It will be interesting to see whether McCain panders to the evangelicals. I don't know McCain's religious views, but I don't think he is a fundamentalist/evangelical.

Howard Dean had problems with this same issue in '04.3/20/2006 06:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|District 8 congressional candidate Alex Rodriguez is having a fundraiser this week. He sent an announcement to his supporters which contained this startling message:
We are proud to see the first Hispanic run for Congress. This is a big stride for the Hispanic population, and will hopefully be the beginning of great hope and accomplishments for our children, grandchildren and our future politicians.
Yes, isn't it about time that this country put a Hispanic in congress? Arizona ought to take a lead in this endeavor. Just so Rodriguez's folks know, the first Hispanic to successfully run for congress was Joseph Marion Hernández, who was a Whig elected as the territorial Delegate from Florida in 1822. The first voting Hispanic member was Ramualdo Pacheco, a Republican from California who served several non-consecutive terms in the 1870's and even served as Governor for a short time. A quick look at our current delegation should tell his folks that he isn't even the first Hispanic to run in Arizona, but, if my memory serves, he would be the first to run in CD 8 (or the old CD5). This is nearly as silly as when Rodriguez claimed to be the only veteran to run, which led to some pointed words from the supporters of Air Force veteran Jeff Latas. Come on, how could y'all not know that Latas is a veteran? Both candidates came to their senses on this one before it became an amusing enough "whose is bigger?" contest for folks like me to comment on. Of course, that didn't stop one supporter of Frank Antenori from trumping both of them on Arizona Congress Watch by claiming that his man has actually killed more terrorists. Okay, you have them beat there, I guess.|W|P|114286377687378744|W|P|...And He Also Invented the Internet|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/20/2006 12:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I think there was a Spanish surnamed fellow from Douglas who ran in the old CD-5 in the late 1980s.3/20/2006 01:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Personally, I find Alex to be a very likable guy. BUT, there is always a but in there, he simply has not done a lick of research when he decided to enter this race.

I would think with your ass on the line, you do a little more background research before you make some claims like that.3/20/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Just to be fair for a second, do you think he meant the first Hispanic to run in this district? I can't imagine that he would believe that he is the first Hispanic to run for Congress?

As to the veteran part, not much excuse there.3/20/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|First he claimed he was entering the race because there were no veterans running. Um, no.

Then he claimed that he was the only one with Pentagon experience. Wrong again.

Then he said that he was the only candidate who had lived on the border. Wrong yet again.

Now he's saying that he's the first Hispanic to run for Congress in Southern Arizona? Sheesh. I think the guy has problems that go deeper than lack of research.

The only thing that distinguishes Alex Rodriguez is that he's the only male Democratic candidate who doesn't actually live in CD 8.

But he has yet to come up with a credible reason for entering this race.3/21/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nicely put, Blue, so who is the only female candidate not to live in the district...Patty Weiss.3/21/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger CD 8 Democratic Voter|W|P|Patty doesn't hide from the hard questions. You can find them on her website.
She has integrity and will answer to the people.

http://patty2006.com/faqs.html3/17/2006 06:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Over on AZ Congress Watch, there was a report yesterday that Rep. Raúl Grijalva was leaving the hispanic caucus. Well, not quite. Grijalva, along with most of the caucus's California membership, have ceased association with the caucus's PAC, called BOLDPAC. Apparently, this has been stirring for quite some time, and stemed from thePAC's support of relatives of caucus members running for local offices. Of course, Rep. Loretta Sanchez being mad about this sort of nepotism is amusing, but never mind that. What is interesting to me is that while Grijalva on the list, the rest are entirely from California. The member that runs BOLDPAC, Rep. Joe Baca, is from California as well. What is up with that? Also, I find it interesting that Sanchez and Rep. Hilda Solis are both on the list. The two have had some friction in the past, particularly after Sanchez recruited her sister Linda to run for congress over several local politicos who had paid their dues. I can't pretend that I have any idea what is going on in the background here, but BOLDPAC isn't known for raising an awful lot of money, and doesn't have a field operation to tap into. New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has a great shot at taking out Rep. Heather "Janet Jackson Made Me Cry" Wilson, and there is a need to defend the seats of Rep. John Salazar and newly appointed Senator Robert Menendez. Building a "farm team" is important, but I can see why there is anger over spending scant resources on electing someone's daughter county clerk. The important thing to remember here is that Grijalva and Co. are not leaving the caucus. The caucus is not just BOLDPAC, it is also a voice on issues like immigration and education and also has an arm called the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, which is involved in various philanthropic activities. The caucus has always been pretty diverse, it includes more conservative Tejanos like Rep. Henry Cuellar as well as liberal firebrands like Nuyorican Rep. Nydia Velázquez. (Oddly, Hispanic political icon Henry B. González was never a member) For a long time, Cubano members, who are entirely Republican but for obvious reasons are also concerned about the direction of the immigration debate, were active caucus members but left as partisanship in the house grew ('round about the time of the formation of BOLDPAC). NB - Rep. Dennis Cardoza is a member? The reason why I ask is that I have a friend that is very active in the Portuguese community in Massachusetts. When I said once, "Well, you are sort of Hispanic too..." she got very offended. "But, Portugal was part of Hispana too." "No, it was part of Lusitania. We aren't Hispanics, we are Luso-Americans." Maybe the community in New England is more uptight, you know, all that snow and chowder. Second mildly related anectdote: I drove around Rep. Hilda Solis when she came to the 2001 Young Democrats of America convention. The radio in the rental car I was driving for some reason had the local classical station on. I left it there, figuring it wouldn't offend anyone. Solis and one staff member got into the car and she said, "Oh please, you think that just because I'm in congress that I'm old and boring? Put on some rock and roll..." I switched it one of our copious classic rock stations (one that has probably changed format three times since then) and she sang along.|W|P|114260675094776325|W|P|Raúl Grijalva: Not Leaving the Hispanic Caucus|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/17/2006 01:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Thanks, Ted. I'll run a link to this post tonight.3/16/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A correspondent sent me a little bit from former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake's web page. I never visit there. Since I don't go there, I miss stirring pieces of rhetoric and innovative public policy such as this one:
I understand that for many, a better quality of life comes from working in a good job. I want to help Arizona retain quality jobs and I’ll work to attract new businesses to our cities, towns and counties at a rate that is compatible with our environment and fair to the construction indsutry.
-Yawn- Sorry, dozed off there. Did I miss something? Anyway, the thing that our corresponent found funny on the site was this picture, entitled "Ron Drake - Casual." Notice the logo on the polo shirt? Yeah, it's a U of A logo. So, when is he a U of A fan? Was it when he attended and graduated from Northern Illinois University? Far be it from me to think that hs is all of a sudden "going native" for a mostly Southern Arizona district. Next he'll be telling us how much he loves Eegee's and bragging about his collection of Al Perry singles. Maybe it's not all political. Round about this time of year, thousands of our brothers and sisters from the Valley of the Yakes who can't stand us and can't imagine driving anywhere south of Baseline road suddenly become Wildcat fans. Que sera sera. NB - Somebody will write and tell me, "See, you Dummycrats can't even come up with anything to criticize him on except his shirt..." Well, if the guy would actually say something interesting, I'll find a more interesting criticism.|W|P|114252094483504853|W|P|No, I'm a Wildcat Fan All the Way, I Love that Tubby Smith...I Mean Merlin Olson|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/16/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|So, according to Tedski, the University of Arizona may only have fans from the Tucson area or alumni. Pray tell, where are these requirements written?

If that's the case, then the University of Arizona needs to change its name since it's unwilling to represent the entire state it claims in its name.3/16/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|No...I'm just saying that eleven months out of the year, folks in the greater Phoenix area seem to have no use for Tucson or the U of A, then all of a sudden call them "Our Wildcats" when tournament time comes around. That's all.

I also think it's convienient that a congressional candidate is all of a sudden a U of A fan when he needs votes in Tucson.

Man, Bored, you really never like what I have to say, do you?3/16/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|A Canidate Speach by a person from Phoenix to the citizens of Southern Arizona.

On another note...

All,I am saying is friends that's a gannga for Picnic's parties, Dinners @ home good things are going with Lucky Wishbone.

When my Grandson then said "that's right Umpa, I got the hungries, where is that blasted Capn' Egee?" And, I replied "If you like Mexican food, I mean if you really like Mexican food come to Gordo's, Which sadly to say are not the buck strechers."

In conclusion please enjoy the food that has been provided by the tTt, and please tip your entertiners Chuckwagon and the Wheels.3/16/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Yeah Ted ... sort of a stretch here man. Can't we make fun of him for labeling his photos by fashion?

And btw, you are right. This time of year EVERYONE (unless you are from Tempe) is a UA fan.3/16/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I thought Gabby Giffords was the buck stretchers.3/16/2006 10:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Mr. T...I figured the picture titles are self parody.3/16/2006 12:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Tedski,

What's wrong with that? Most people, even in Tucson I imagine, don't pay attention to college basketball until tournament time. Big deal. Why not just welcome them and try to make them year round fans? Wildcat fandom need not be an exclusive club.

Actually, this whole inferiority complex that you seem to have about poor little put-upon Tucson is silly. I've never seen or heard anyone in the Valley say a negative thing about Tucson or U of A. [Except that the road system sucks - but that's just the pot calling the kettle black.]

But if you keep this up, you're going to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would I want to come down to Tucson or send my kid to U of A, if Phoenicians are looked down at by this snobbery (or reverse snobbery. whatever.)

Second, how do you know this guy came by this UA support recently and didn't become a Wildcat fan when he moved here from Illinois? Are you just assuming this out of political cynicism (which is understandable but may not be defensable)?

Third, it's not that I dislike everything you say. It's just that I don't do circle jerks or amen choruses. If I agree with you (or just don't care), I probably won't take the time to say anything unless I believe I have a salient point to add to the discussion. But when I disagree or when I think you haven't thought something through, I will speak up. Take it as constructive criticism intended to make your arguments stronger.

C'mon Tedski. If you don't want to defend your point of view and would prefer to have sheeple blindly agree with you all the time, you'd be more comfortable in the Republican party.3/16/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|-sigh-

Mr or Mrs Bored...I was just joking a bit about the complaint, really...keep posting. But please, don't accuse me of being in a "circle jerk" when you often seem to be parroting the whole "all elected Democrats are spineless whimps" line so common on the blogosphere.

For example, in response to my post about Grijalva signing on to Feingold's censure resolution, you complained about a "meaningless gesture." Pray tell, what else should he be doing? Raising a militia to stage a coup?

Frankly, this sort of thing stops being constructive criticism, and edges dangerously close to the sort of whiny handwringing that has kept me away from Daily Kos.

As far as us Tucsonans complaining about Phoenix's attitude towards us, yes, it happens. Let me give you an anectdote, I could give you plenty more, but just one will do. I got stuck at the Phoenix airport, and I decided I had time to get my shoes shined. I go over there and the guy starts shining my shoes and sees that I had a copy of the Arizona Daily Star. He said "Why are you reading that, nothing hapens there..." I told him that I picked it up before I left Tucson. The guy started giving me all sorts of grief about how we were all stupid to live there, in the desert (like Phoenix is some forest paradise), and that Tucson "smells funny". I reminded the guy to stop trashing my town if he wanted a tip. He said "You don't need to be so stuck up about it."

Anyway, keep posting...but I need positive feedbadk...I'm sensitive.3/16/2006 10:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, forget the whole 'local' thing. I can think of several other reasons for Drake to go for U of A.

1. It's easier to get tickets, and he can actually go to a game without having to pass through airport security. Especially helpful if he shows up on the 'no-fly' list.

2. Be honest-- do you even know what town Northern Illinois University is located in?

3. The Wildcats win. Ever notice how politicians aren't just associated with local teams, but they are associated with WINNING local teams. Now, if he gets a picture taken with an Arizona Cardinals shirt on, now THAT would be news.

4. When U of A is winning, you can find lots of wildcat gear in all the stores. When they are losing, you can still find lots of wildcat gear, and it's on sale!.

5. The U of A games are on television, and you don't have to pay for them.

Well, yeah.... you're right. He wants to get votes. If polling data suddenly showed that there were a large number of U.C. Irvine grads in his district, I bet he'd even put on Anteater gear.3/17/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I'm wondering if a preponderance of Scotsdale Community College grads would lead to him wearing one of those odd Fighting Artichokes shirts.3/17/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Tedski,

My point about Grijalva and the censure vote is that it is a perfect example of how the Democratic party is messing up a golden opportunity to offer people a real alternative to the GOP by engaging in symbolic gestures.

I don't read Daily Kos so I'm not sure what they're saying about all this, but the Dems aren't going to win hearts and minds by just being against the GOP. There has to be an organized effort to promote a specific agenda and have those Dems currently in state and federal offices promote legislation and other efforts to enact that agenda. Yes, I know they are outnumbered in Congress, but so what? That just gives the Dems the ability to say, "we tried to do this and make America better but the GOP blocked it b/c they aren't looking out for you."

Unfortunately, there is no consensus in the party and no strong leaders on the federal level. And all Howard Dean does is put his foot in his mouth whining about the GOP and giving them blackboard material.

Similarly, all this censure thing did was rally the GOP base and fire up their fundraising machine. Is that what you want? Cuz that's all we getting now.3/17/2006 11:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Bored,

Exactly when should the Dems put forth their message? Now when no one is paying attention and the media is enjoying publishing all of the crap we have been yellling about for the past decade pretty much...or when voters start paying attention which is in August.3/18/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--Those who view themselves (or their town) as a victim ARE a victim. Why not just be happy in the knowledge that we [in Tucson] live in one of the most beautiful places in the world and let it go at that? Phoenix has yellow-green grass, abundant hardscape, ugly architecture, puny mountains, more smog, worse traffic/air pollution, hotter/more humid weather, and little to remind one of the unique Sonoran Desert.

BOREDINAZ is so right re the "specific agenda". Perhaps the DEMs are proposing realistic policies that are not getting media play. Most of what I hear from the national party is anti-Republican, anti-Bush, way-too-partisan-sounding stuff--VERY little in the way of positive policy proposals. We have far too many people willing to spend their time ranting instead of doing the hard-core research needed to come up with reality-based policies that the majority of Americans can get behind.

I also agree with boredinaz re the censure deal. Why concentrate scarce resources on this now? Why give the Republicans another thing they can use to fire up their troops? Why not concentrate all the resources on coming up with a Democratic Contract with America and winning back Congress?

Democratic House/Senate '06!3/20/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Elizabeth,

Thank you for illuminating the problem. With an attitude like that, voters will see this proposal to play dead until August for what it is ... empty theatrics. But if Dems have been working on enacting a specific agenda, they can have something to point to instead of just saying "hey, we know we haven't done sh-- for the past six years but complain but look at what we thought up three months before an election (coincidentally)."

Did you wait "the voters were paying attention in August" to campaign? How did that work out for you?

If the Dems start working now on enacting a specific agenda (like cc burro said, a Dem Contract w/ America) and emphasizing those agenda items ad nauseum from now until November, it will raise voter consciousness long before August and put the GOP on the defensive for once. Now, all they have to do is point out the lack of conviction in the Dems and point to what little agenda they have.

You simply cannot undo six years of ineptitude with three months of slick TV ads. The voters aren't that stupid. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.5/08/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Puck|W|P| It's easier to get tickets, and he can actually go to a game without having to pass through airport security. Especially helpful if he shows up on the 'no-fly' list.

Obviously you've never tried to get tickets for a UA basketball game.3/15/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Town of Oro Valley had its election yesterday, and Mayor Paul Loomis fought off a challenge from Amphitheater School Board Member Nancy Young Wright. Wright ran a good campaign and raised a great deal more money than Loomis. Wright made breaks to developers, particularly a bizarre deal given to Vestar Development Co., a central issue in her campaign. She managed 42% of the vote. The Vestar deal allows them to capture 45% of sales tax revenue from their development. This went beyond a regular package of incentives. This isn't "We'll give you a break on sewer fees" or something. Essentially, Oro Valley gave away its taxing and spending authority to a private entity. The deal was capped at $23.2 million (this in a community whose last budget was only $99 million), but there is little oversight over how Vestar spends the money and it sets a bad precedent. Vestar had made it clear that without this "incentive," they would not build the Oro Valley Marketplace, the development in question, at all. I guess that Vestar is a maginal company, always on the brink of bankruptcy. Why else would they have demanded the tax "incentive."? Vestar needs these tax breaks to build because they don't have the cash, I guess, but their political action committee had the cash to innundate voters with mailers and slickly produced DVDs. Along with the Loomis/Wright race, the Vestar development deal was on the ballot. A group called Stop Oro Valley Outrageous Giveaways, with the clumsy SOVOG acronym, formed and managed to force the deal onto the ballot. Unfortunately, they were up against a Vestar funded political action committee, and Oro Valley voters, for some reason, approved the deal. SOVOG looks at this as a bit of a victory though. They felt like this deal was approved with little public input (in the past, the Oro Valley Town council had been criticized for lack of public comment at hearings), and they at least made the public look at this deal. As much as we on this side of the political line love to complain about politicians being in the pocket of developers, voters have to learn to step up to when the time comes. No ammont of money or slick DVDs forces a citizen to vote for this sort of corporate welfare.|W|P|114243367005325517|W|P|Oro Valley: Vestar and Loomis Win|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/15/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This blog usually is correct but there are several errors on this one.

Oro Valley did not give away its taxing and spending authority. It is going to share future sales tax revenue with Vestar if the developer meets certain sales tax revenue goals.

The project passed a very stringent zoning approval process and the town had a great deal of input on how the site is to be developed. Oro Valley is one of the pickiest places in which to do business and they micro-managed a lot of the details on this project.

One thing the developer is going to do is restore a large area of land to its original, natural desert habitat. I would think a Democrat would be in favor of this.

Since the developer receives no up-front money the deal would be of no help to them if they are on the “brink of bankruptcy.”

As you portray SOVOG in a David vs. Goliath battle with Vestar you left out that SOVOG was a well funded citizens front group backed by the corporate interests of Fry’s, Safeway, and Bashes’ (per their web site at www.sovog.com.)

The voters DID step up, and voted for the Oro Valley Market Place because it is a good deal for the town and its residents.3/15/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|...and if anyone knows what's good for Oro Valley, it's someone from Phoenix.3/15/2006 01:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Actually, he's from down here.3/15/2006 03:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“if anyone knows what’s good for Oro Valley” This has nothing to do with me.

After a well funded campaign by BOTH sides, a large developer vs. 3 supermarket chains, the residence of Oro Valley approved this by a vote of 58% to 42%.3/16/2006 02:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|The voters of Oro Valley have shot themselves in the foot. The problem with this deal isn't its terms (though I generally disagree with such coroporate welfare without a quid pro quo), it is about the future bargaining position.

What developer isn't going to stick their hands out demanding a share of tax revenue on every new project? Now that Oro Valley has shown they're patsies, the parade of developers dunning them for a free ride won't end. Best of luck to OV in developing a healthy tax base in the future.3/16/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|A quick trip up to the town would show anyone that there is no shortage of new development.

I don’t think the Town Council will make a similar agreement anytime soon since most of those who voted for the incentive got booted out of office.3/20/2006 05:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|All that market economy, "hands off", Adam Smith, BS that is taught in some business schools is completely and utterly refuted by the Vestar/Oro Valley deal...and the many like it in local govts. around our country.

Those who espouse limited government...smaller govt...free market should look very closely at these sort of deals. It ain't much different than tax and spend to me...except that the very powerful with access to government win.3/14/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sen. Harry Mitchell has announced that he is stepping down as Arizona Democratic Party Chairman and running against Rep. J. D. Hayworth. Let the games begin. Hayworth spends an awful lot of space on his official congressional page criticizing Governor Janet Napolitano, probably looking forward to a US Senate race against her later. I've never been too sure that it was appropriate to do this, but now, it looks a bit premature, doesn't it?|W|P|114234713731321049|W|P|He's In!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 10:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Mark this prediction.......
JD Hayworth 60%
Harry Mitchell 40%

You heard it here first...3/14/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Larry King has released this:


I'm disappointed that the DCCC chose to get involved in a primary, to support a candidate to run against me. But here's the positive outlook: the DCCC involvement demonstrates that this is a winnable and viable seat. They know that the 40% the last Democratic challenger earned in 2004, (she spent $5,300) was an indicator of the change that has occurred in my district. Everyone understands that the Republican candidate is someone who would not be the agent of change that is sorely needed for this country. Most of the country now believes we are going in the wrong direction. It is going to take common sense leadership to start to move us on a different path.3/14/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Mitchell has been just about the only vocal Democrat in the Valley. Think he'll go strangely quiet now that he's a candidate?

It's like Arizona dems have become the Ellen Jamesian Society, lately.3/14/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Dear Tony:

Would your prediction hold true if JD is indicted...and remember...you have to hope that voters focus on his local issues and not on his record with the now very unpopular Republican party.

All that said, incumbents generally win...there will be upsets out there, like in the NCAA tourney, but the ratio of upsets to likely winners is always pretty small.3/14/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The second best part about Mitchell going into the race is the fact that Ted can post the Mitchell Poster. That was the only movie on MST3K that was watchable in its own right.3/14/2006 12:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Phil A. Buster|W|P|Anyone care to guess how this affects the Senate and House races in District 17?3/14/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|phil -

I'm just guessing, but it probably won't make much difference overall.

Harry Mitchell was term-limited this time, so he wasn't running. There shouldn't be any fallout in the races with candidates shuffling around from one race to another. The candidates for D17 aren't going to have to adjust for a gap in the Democratic slate.

Where it might make a difference is that Mitchell will probably be too busy with his own campaign to do much stumping for D17 Dems in the general election. Especially since Sen. Mitchell will probably need to focus his attention on the parts of CD5 that aren't named Tempe.3/14/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Tony, JD Hayworth had trouble cracking 60% against one of the regular bloggers here, who had no money and no name recognition.

Against a former state Senator who has served as head of the party and has the connections to be able to raise funds, he's in trouble. Mark my words.


J.D. running in a Senate race against Napolitano? Observation #1: She'd squish him like a fat little beetle (which is why he backed out of the gubernatorial contest). Observation #2: You perceive that McCain, win or lose on his Presidential run, plans to leave the Senate and not seek re-election.3/14/2006 08:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|I didn't realize how CRAZY this thing has gotten. I've been cruising the blogs (dailykos and other locals) about this and am just SHOCKED at what people are saying.

The basic breakdown seems to be:
- Harry = DLC
- Larry = Progressive

I like both men a lot, I hate JD with a passion, and I want CD 5 to come out of this intact, united, and ready to beat that jerk of a congressman I have WHOEVER the nominee is.

I just don't think there is much evidence to support either of the above claims. I mean hell, I personally met Larry King for the first time when I went with tom-az to the national DLC meeting in phoenix to settle a bet on whether Al From could resist criticizing dean AFTER the primaries (Al couldn't resist btw and tom-az and I bust out laughing at how ridiculous he was in the middle of his big speech).

Larry King then was a PROUD DLC supporter- he was talking about how great the DLC State & Local Playbook is and was singing the DLC's praises. I remember because it was the first time I ever met the guy and it was so close to my time with Dean that i hated everything DLC. It was refreshing to see a nice, open, and cool guy who liked the DLC ... it helped me realize that the organization sucks but many people active in it don't. Since then, I've never been given any indication that Larry is anything more than a GREAT guy with moderate leanings who cares immensely for his district.

This, btw, is fine for ME but I know that the DLC thing leads to the death penalty of no support for so many of my fellow progressives - regardless of the circumstances. So now poking around it is clear that these same people who would lambast From for anything his org does and chastise Giffords for her association with it are now ALL ABOUT Larry King on the basis of IDEOLOGY. It is just ... shockingly unexpected ... up until know I thought their support was based on his hard work, determination, great personality, and willingness to work with others.

I am so shocked that people are assuming Larry is some super liberal savior for AZ and that Harry's recent involvment is now some top down heavy handed ideological moderating meant to silence the foaming at the mouth hippie that is Larry King.

I mean ... isn't it possible Larry is just a solid moderate good guy running for office because he cares? Isn't it possible Harry has wanted to run for higher officer for some time but until now never had a good enough shot worth risking his reputation and family's privacy for? That is my take on this, and I argue with further investigation it would be yours too.

On top of all this, I really don't think people can say Harry's voting record in the Senate is conservative. Go take a look right now at the bills he is sponsoring this year. I mean how many bills does a guy have to sponsor with Kyrsten Sinema before we stop calling them corporate chronies of the right wing?

I know I'm in full blown rant mode here, but lets not forget that we are talking about HARRY MITCHELL. This guy is the grandfather of Tempe politics, a guy that makes people like me who are total hacks retain the true believerism we had when we got into this racket as kids. Despite what I have read, there is no shred of opportunism or corruption or even MEANNESS in the guy. If you haven't ever met him - find a way to and you'll see what I mean.

Both of these guys are good, ethical, hard working public servants. The fact that anything NEGATIVE is flowing between the "two camps of supporters" when the candidates are so close (Harry was Larry's 2002 campaign chair I believe) is troublesome for me and relies on information that is far from factual.

Is the way, as progressives, we intend to change our party? By launching ideologically selfish attacks based on NO merit? If so we will lose and along the way kill the spirit of what we all are fighting for in the first place.

WOW -- that comment got long and turned right into a rant. Probably would have been more appropriate as a wactivist post huh Tedski? I'll start working on that.

Please ... flame away - I'm ready for it.3/15/2006 12:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know, we are so used to the DLC being the boogeymen of the campaign that sometimes we forget that they do not control everything.

Rahm called Harry because he thought that Harry would do the best in the district. However Rahm does not control the voters so let us let them decide.3/15/2006 07:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|"Move On" Democrats and DLC Democrats are both DEMOCRATS. I left the GOP six years ago because I was sick of all the "more Republican than thou" crap I had to take from the litmus-testers who insisted on labeling me a RINO because I had the temerity to be pro-choice, supportive of public schools and a conservationist.

Now that I am a Democrat, I am disgusted with the manner in which so-called progressives feel that it is their right to attack anyone to their right as not being enough of a Democrat. The natural byproduct of such behavior is losing elections.

By the way, I voted for Dean in the primaries in '04. His message of fiscal prudence and social justice, backed up by his record during five terms as Vermont's governor, was what appealed to me. Moreover, he didn't run the state trying to score ideological brownie points with the Left; he governed like a common-sense, results-oriented pragmatist.

Democrats like Napolitano are winning elections because they make wise choices about spending tax dollars, edit for content before they open their mouths and care little what Sean Hannity or Molly Ivins has to say about them.

Let's focus on electing all manner of Democrats and chucking Republicans out of office. "Compassionate conservative" rhetoric to the contrary, there ain't many Jim Jeffords clones left in that party! God, it must be lonely to be Sherwood Boehlert!3/15/2006 10:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|rex scott:

Don't assume that moderate Democrats can't win a primary including former Republicans. Case in point: Slade Mead, likely to win the Democratic primary for Superintendent of Instruction, and a moderate Republican legislator until the conservatives booted him out two years ago for supporting the governor's budget.3/16/2006 10:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/20/2006 05:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Exactly...Rex...and Eli. I question what a moderate really is too. I question what progressives are trying to do here. Some are running campaigns against the party establishment as well as anyone who might be "pro-business". It might be a fine way to stand out in a primary, but it means you alienate the broader voting base. Where will your voters come from? Where will the dollars come from to run a federal campaign?

I also question what some define a moderate as. A moderate can mean simply having broad support across the party. Support by liberals on some liberal issues and maybe businesses on some other issues.3/21/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Usually a "moderate" is "liberal" on some issues, "moderate" on other issues" and/or "conservative" on other issues, and, thus, as KRALMAJALES points out, have broader support. The majority of people in this country identify as "moderates".3/25/2006 07:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZ Indy|W|P|I may be an anomaly. I'm a registered Republican, ideologically a moderate Indy, voting for Mitchell, Napolitano and Pederson this year.

I donated to King's campaign because I was excited that ANY Dem might have a chance against the blowhard Catophile Hayworth. When King said he'd bow out if Mitchell ran, I took that as explicit acknowledgement by King that Mitchell has the stronger chance to defeat JD. I'm expecting that the voters in the primary will decide that way, too.

Unfortunately, I'm overseas right now, so can't vote in the primaries. But I'm hoping to volunteer for Mitchell beginning in August when I return.3/14/2006 06:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A study from Northern Arizona University released this weekend concludes that 37% of voters are unfamiliar with the requirements of the so-called Protect Arizona Now act that voters passed in 2004. Today, some locales are having their first elections under the new restrictions, so many consider today the "kickoff" for the new voting requirements. 64% say that they have seen nothing in the news media about this. It doesn't suprise me, given local TV seems to have trouble covering any story more complex than the latest car accident or Wildcats basketball. But it also makes me wonder, what ever happened to all that Help America Vote Act money that the Seceretary of State's office is supposed to use for, you know, helping people vote? She seemed to have enough room to put her name and face really large on those mailers, think she could have spent some time informing people about this? All throughout the last century, public policy was about expanding voting rights. The Seventeenth Ammendment, Nineteenth Ammendment, Harrison v Laveen, the Voting Rights Act, the Twenty-Sixth Ammendment, all were aimed at getting more people to vote. In the early 1990's, we abolished the position of Deputy Registrar in this state and enabled people to register to vote almost anywhere. We've decided now that barefooted, sunstroked, impoverished border crossers are so scary that we need to dial back our voting rights. I know, I'll get a post from someone (Phx Kid, probably) that says "All you need is an ID, that's not a restriction..." Well, we'll see how the law actually gets applied. Will everyone be asked for ID? Will some ID's get more scrutiny than others? How much do you want to bet that there will be no coverage of how this law gets implemented until an upper-middle class Anglo gets turned away from the polls? Yes, cynical me. The reason why I get a bit paranoid about this is because this is the state of Operation Golden Eagle, a project in the 1960's where the Republican party actively tried to supress Black and Hispanic turnout by stationing official looking people at polling places to "check IDs." Even in the most recent presidential election, the Pima County Republicans phonebanked into the mostly Hispanic South Side of Tucson giving the wrong date for the election. Heck, I also get paranoid about this because when I first voted, they almost turned me away. Not because I was Hispanic (who the heck can tell with me anyway?), but because the elderly election judge insisted that I was too young to vote. This despite my name not only being on the voter rolls, but my name was also on the ballot for Precinct Committeeman. (Oh, first Republican that claims these are not "restrictions" on voting rights, see if he or she will agree that showing an ID and a background check to buy a gun is not a restriction of their Second Ammendment rights) Strange thing about this is that people voted these restrictions in on their own volition. Somebody, somewhere, who voted for PAN is going to be the first to complain about voting being too complicated now. The cynical bastard in me will have to resist laughing at him.|W|P|114234523157423488|W|P|Study: Many Voters Don't Understand Prop. 200 Restrictions|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mr Stapleton|W|P|"Study: Many Voters Don't Understand Prop. 200 Restrictions"

Excellent. Mission Accomplished!3/14/2006 07:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Well well said Ted. What is also interesting is that the law doesn't apply to "mail in" ballots.

We care so much about making sure the voter is who they say they are...that's it right?...so we set up a process that is gaining steam around the state that asks no one to give an ID at all.

The ID check proposition was clearly about race. I could say it was about turning back "get out the vote" machines on election day, but I really don't believe that either. Whether the ID check would clean up our elections or not, it was clearly proposed so that voters could gratify themselves by doing yet one more thing to "protect" our state from Latin American influence. It is our modern "boogey man" to fight.3/14/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski, I think you are correct and most people are not informed. The media and other institutions in the public space have done a poor job of informing people about the new rules.

kralmajales is correct; this does not apply to vote by mail ballots. If you think anyone is being disenfranchised just start an awareness campaign to have as many people vote by mail as possible. End of problem.

Speaking of the Second Amendment I would love to be able to purchase a gun through the mail as easily as I can vote that way. Here is my signature, payment enclosed, please ship to the enclosed address. Sounds great to me.3/14/2006 09:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|My point was this...if we can vote by mail, then why have that law at the polls? Prop. 200 just seems like a typical symbolic law that has nefarious purposes.3/14/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, if I was a Republican, which I am not, I would say this is kind of the Democrats fault for ignoring illegal immigration for so long.

If I was the Democrats, I would say that this whole thing is the fault of Jan Brewer and the authors of Prop 200. Not the idea, god knows we can debate the idea, but there are better, smarter and more efficient ways to ensure voter integrity at the polls or to show ID, but the way that Jan Brewer bucked the AG and bucked the State Legislature and bucked her own staff in order to make this complex, fubar system of hers is the real problem.

The law is flawed, that much is obvious but the author has said several times in the media that she is just happy that the discussion is giving real merit. For years they were treated like the tin hat brigade.

The timeline went like this:

Law is Passed

November, the AG puts out an opinion that shows that the actual law, the actual wording of the law only mentions two small ARS statutes and thus can only apply to those statutes and cannot apply to education and healthcare because that is outlawed by the Federal Gov't anyways, but the actual text of the law does not mention healthcare or education despite what the opponents and proponents said during the campaign.

Next, she went and got "pre-approval" from a "Department of Justice Official" who no longer works for DOJ at the time he wrote the opinion but was 3 days into his employment at a conservative think tank and then it turned out that that same person was a peon and even if he had worked at DOJ, he had no authority to issue an opinion anyways. Especially without the signature nor the approval of AG Gonzalez.

She fights with the state leg, the AG and the Guv and gives us this flawed POS that county recorders nearly rioted in her office about.

so in essence, please someone get rid of this idiot. She's not a bad person or a bad politician, she's just plain stupid.3/14/2006 11:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger the byce man|W|P|I just sort of disagree with the concept of registration in and of itself. Honestly, how much information does the government already have laying around? Probably enough to decide if you are old enough to vote, where you should vote, etc. All requiring people to register does is make it a pain in the ass.
Part of this, though is the fault of the parties. Not so much for presidential elections, but for city council and mid-term elections, when no one really knows what's going on, parties are really the only force getting people to vote. And almost without fail, they target the same people: those who have not moved and have voted before. I think the entire thing is fucked up, honestly, and skews election results.3/14/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*I* voted today. The people at the polling place were nice and I have two surveys to fill out now.3/14/2006 03:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This could benefit either Israel Torres or Bruce Wheeler in the general election though:

Make it clear that this is Jan Brewer's interpretation of the law. Make it clear that she wrote these restrictions.

Because the first time people will get turned away is in the primary, and when they do, make sure they realize who to take it out on in the general.3/15/2006 07:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger New American Rebel|W|P|Sorry, whether the law was intended to slight one race or another, its application, and the idea is awesome. I couldn't care less if you're from Mexico, Germany, Sweeden, Great Britain, Ireland, or what have you. If you're not an American citizen, you shouldn't be voting in our elections.

Second, I think registration is a GREAT idea. First, the eligible voters are by in large dumb and uninformed. That's one of the reasons why our Founders wrote a limited franchise into the Constitution. Granted, if that were still the law today, even I wouldn't be able to vote since I own no land, but the idea of excluding the dumb from making decisions that affect the entire State is brilliant.

Voters aren't dumb? Oh? I thought you just said they had no clue about the provisions on Prop. 202. They were also stupid enough to vote for Clean Elections Some of them are even dumb enough to vote for RINOs (like John McCain and Tom Horne) and Democrats. The ballot initiative process in Arizona has been an utter disaster.

Our fonders settled on a REPUBLIC, not a democracy because they knew that if the masses were involved in making every decision, they'd just muck it up. I'd say they've been proven right.3/13/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to try to figure out a comment or elaboration on this, but why? Just let the man speak for himself:
I support Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure the President of the United States. Today's resolution reflects the mood of the American people who are demanding accountability from the President. This situation demands that the Democratic leadership speak strongly and clearly to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. This censure is not solely about wiretapping, it is the culmination of many negative impacts this Administration has had on our nation. Over the last five years, the American people's mistrust in our government has increased due to the failures in this Administration. President Bush has failed to be a leader in many areas. He lied about Iraq, was negligent before and after Hurricane Katrina, has hurt our seniors with a flawed Medicare drug benefit, and violated our privacy with illegal wiretapping. It is time that the President be held accountable and respond to the American people.
|W|P|114230249806996557|W|P|Grijalva Supports Feingold Resolution|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 08:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|And where is Ed Pastor? Missing in action as usual?3/14/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I greatly respect this censure motion and those who have joined it. I followed the wiretapping debate with great interest and debated it with colleagues around the country. The action to spy on Americans was clearly illegal. There were adequate, quick, and legitimate checks by a "secret court" (can you believe that we have a secret court in America?) to provide a check to be sure that the wiretaps would go too far--a simple and very easy to obtain warrant--to prevent illegal spying on Americans.

The warrant was quick and easily granted and what it did was to keep the administration from spying on Americans without probable cause and from going further (spying on political opponents). The President chose to by-pass this process illegally and his supporters are blocking any investigation of who was spyed on. All we have is their WORD. The reaction by the White House and supporters screams that the wiretaps went further than just spying on Al Qaeda.

I am so grateful for Senator Feingold and those Reps. like Grijalva. What bothers me is that so few others are willing to stand up on what is an obvious shattering of our law and seperation of powers. To Republicans, how far does the administration have to go before doing what is right trumps your partisanship? To Democrats, how can you stand by and let this happen?3/14/2006 08:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|"President Bush has failed to be a leader in many areas."

And the same can be said about the Democrats, who settle for meaningless symbolic gestures instead of offering real change.3/14/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...I went back after my post above to look at what the Washington Post said about this story. Check it out:


It has a paragraph or two showing that the Democratic leadership and some consultants see this in a very timid and wary fashion.

Maybe I am just out of the mainstream, but how can investigating the spying on Americans be out of the mainstream? I think the party has really not made a case for why this is wrong and what might be lurking behind the shadows.

I think the real problem though is that some were briefed...and those some were Reid and Pelosi and the ranking Demos on the intell. committees.3/14/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|All the more reason to get rid of Reid and Pelosi. Their incompetence is disgusting.3/18/2006 09:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|The lack of positive, proactive, stateperson-like, inspirational, creative, strong leadership in the Democratic national party is almost discouraging.

However, the Republican leadership is even worse. I feel sorry for the Republican grassroots. Frist is no statesman-definite lick your finger and stick it up to the wind kind of guy.3/18/2006 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Your sympathy is touching. But please don’t feel sorry for us (the Republican grassroots.) We are quite happy because in the end we have our family and our faith. If a candidate wins or looses this year or next the things we care about will still be there.3/20/2006 05:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx kid...

I do love what you said and it was so very American. Having your family, your faith, and your beliefs is what being American is all about. But we also must throw in tolerance. What made me leave the Republican party was that missing element of tolerance and the need by some in the Republican party to impose their standards of faith and family on the rest of society...by law.

Your attitude expressed above is so very refreshing...I wish more in your party felt the same way.3/20/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tolerance? I hope your didn’t join the Democratic Party after leaving the Republicans.

The modern Democratic Party has been pretty willful in its intolerance of the right of individual citizens to peaceably and lawfully own and use firearms.

You say, oh that’s different because that issue is a secular policy difference and not a religious value. I disagree. I think many Democrats have a personal dislike of firearms that is unrelated to empirical science and I do not appreciate their intolerance to a tradition that goes back to before the founding of this country.3/21/2006 07:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|There are some DEMs who dislike guns. Then there are other who just don't like citizens having machine guns. I would question whether DEMs elected in RED states oppose the right of individual citizens to peaceably and lawfully own and use firearms [which I also support].3/21/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|You are correct, not all Dems are anti gun but the party has come to be identified with gun control. John Kerry was a real looser for the Democrats on this issue. I know Kyl is well liked among the firearms community in Arizona. That is just one of several voting blocks that will not be looking around for a new Senator.

And just what is wrong with machine guns? In the wrong hands a semi-automatic is also extremely deadly as is a bolt action. There is nothing inherently evil about a machine gun; just some people do not like them. And that is intolerance.3/21/2006 11:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|There is nothing inherently wrong with machine guns. I'm just conveying my observations. Usually people associate machine guns with war and drug dealers--not marksmanship, hunting or self-defense.3/13/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sen. John Greene has dropped out of the Governor's race. According to a report on KJZZ this afternoon, Greene had trouble getting his usual allies in the business community to support him because they are resigned to a Len Munsil victory. Whatever happened to Don Goldwater? If this is the case, that moderate businessmen didn't rally to Greene's side, it would follow a pattern that is all too common among the Chamber of Commerce types in our state. The stages are like this:
  1. The business community hunts for a moderate candidate
  2. The buisiness community gives tepid and/or useless support
  3. The buisiness community discovers that their candidate isn't doing well, probably due to lack of support
  4. The business community abandons candidate to support conservative probable winner, thinking that they can get a good deal out of him or her
  5. Conservative candidate wins
  6. The buisiness community discovers that the conservative was actually serious about the stuff that he or she said during campaign
  7. The business community cries to the few Democratic office holders about what happened to their party, and could you please help us pass a few bills?
  8. The business community continues to support Republicans, and we go back to step 1
|W|P|114229217889082305|W|P|Now All Fourteen of His Supporters are Going to Have to Find Someone Else to Vote For|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Um, not quite Tedski.

Actually, in this case, according to Greene's own statement to the Phoenix Business Journal, he couldn't get support from the business community because they told him they were already supporting the governor.3/13/2006 05:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|How about this analysis.

Pro-abortion candidate finds out he is in the wrong party.3/13/2006 06:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Pro abortion person finds out he's in the wrong party?

Wow. Someone better tell Barry Goldwater, Rudy Giuliani, Arlen Spector, Barbara Bush, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Sen Olympia Snowe, Sen. Susan Collins.3/13/2006 11:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Barry Goldwater endorsed Karen English when she first ran for Congress.

That concludes my cool AZ knowledge.3/14/2006 06:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx kid:

I really hope the Republicans continue to drive away pro-choice Republicans...it will leave the party with a small block of like minded voters with no capacity or power to govern.

Without party moderates and independents, Republicans would not have the House, the Senate, nor the Presidency. If the Democrats can capture these voters, they will win in 2008.3/14/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|it works both ways. The Democrats are working pretty hard at dring away pro-life Catholics.3/13/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A couple of months back, I heard an interview with the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He noted that he was the only head of a major denomination to come out for the war in Iraq, and it was because he was democratically elected by his flock. He said that more denominations would have been pro-war if it was just left up to a vote of parishioners. Of course, this neglects other issues, such as gay rights and abortion, where many denominations are more conservative than their members. These were positions he was okay with, so he didn't mind that though. I thought about that when I read this article in the Tucson Citizen about the reaction of conservative Roman Catholics to recent statements by bishops regarding illegal immigration. There is among some of the people quoted in the article policy differences and discomfort with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony's rather radical call for civil disobedience. I can understand that, because it is similar to my discomfort with the church's position on the Protect Marriage Arizona ammendment. We Catholics, liberal and conservative, thrive on being ticked off at one or another political stance that the Church takes. And the Church would not be doing its job if it just took stands that made all of the parishioners happy. That's what Disneyland is for. But, one person quoted in the article particularly disturbed me:
Retired IBM manager Rob Haney, a parishioner at St. Thomas Catholic Church in Phoenix, also is strongly opposed to the bishops' stance on immigration. He feels the bishops are supporting "open borders" that would turn the United States into a "Third World Country."

"They (bishops) have no respect for the sovereignty of the country," Haney said. "They want more welfare from the federal government to aid illegal immigration."

By supporting immigration reform that would legalize millions of Latino immigrants, the bishops are undercutting their own stance against abortion, because Latinos tend to vote Democratic, Haney added.

"It makes no sense, " Haney said.

First of all, Mr. Haney seems to totally misunderstand why the immigrants are coming here. Few, if any, are signing up for welfare. This is because they are basically fugitives, and fugitives don't tend to willingly put their names and addresses on government sponsored lists. But Haney also doesn't stop with simple policy differences with Church leaders. He's angry because these aliens might become citizens and vote the wrong way. Evidently, in his copy of the Gospels, the Beatitudes have a codicil that says "none of this applies if you have political differences." Disgusting. Yes, I'll admit that church officials often have petty political motives behind what they do. I, for one, will be anxious to see if those three bishops that wanted to deny communion to John Kerry will be nearly as ready to deny it to Rudy Giuliani when he runs for president. Haney seems to think that the Church should only preach charity to people who support it politically (and at that, only political stances he personally supports). Charity is not supposed to be done for political reasons, or only given for people that we like. If it was, it wouldn't be charity, wouldn't it? Another thing I heard this weekend was an interview with Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He was criticizing Cardinal Mahony's statements. First he claimed that the Church shouldn't be practicing charity with "their parishioner's jobs." As if there are millions of Amreicans who would love to pick strawberries or wash dishes. He also said that the Church is free to give communion to illegal immigrants (gee, thanks), but he doesn't support "harboring" and "smuggling." Who is harboring and smuggling? I figured out that his definition of harboring and smuggling is rather broad when he talked about two "Arizona church workers" who are on trial for "smuggling." He didn't name them, but he is probably refering to the case of Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz. Calling them "church workers" is probably a bit much. The group that Sellz and Strauss are with, No More Deaths, is an eccumenical organization tangentially affiliated with St. Mark's Presbyterian Church(a Protestant congregation that a Catholic Arch-Bishop from Los Angeles has no sway over), and the two of them are non-practicing Jews. To imply that the two of them were "directed" to do so by the Catholic Church or any other religious institution is silly. But aside from that, how is what the two of them did smuggling? They saw some people in trouble and tried to take them to someplace where they could get medical care. I don't call that smuggling, I call that being a decent human being. In the twisted universe of the anti-immigrant community, this makes them worse than coyotes. I mean, they must think it is worse because I don't see them getting nearly as angry about actual paid smugglers.|W|P|114226157645414693|W|P|We Are All For Charity and Stuff, Just Not for People We Don't Like|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 12:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why is it that those who profess to worship the God of Jesus always seem to find their reasons in the Old Testament?3/13/2006 02:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Elizabeth:

They pick and choose from that, too. For example, they forget the exhortation (in Deuteronomy 14:29) to feed the stranger who is within thy gates.3/13/2006 03:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Does no one realize the Rob Haney is the Republican Chairman of Legislative District 11, a staunch supporter of Arizona Right to Life and one of the biggest campaign volunteers for Andrew Thomas in both his Attorney General and County Attorney races - although he got mad at Thomas recently for his failure to pursue the election fraud questions in the Orlich - McComish race.3/14/2006 03:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Haney is the one who keeps trying to "sensure" Sen. John McCain. Haney spends all his time recruiting Precinct Committeeman using his "litmus" test (abortion). He engineered the takeover of the Maricopa County Republicans with proxies. Along with his pals, the "PAChyderm Coalition", a group of Libertarian leaning pols, they intend to take over the Republican Party in Arizona...3/18/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Are most Libertarians against abortion?3/20/2006 05:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nice question CC Burro. I am not sure what the breakdown is of libertarians who are anti-abortion...but there are some certainly. The "individual liberty" focus goes toward when an individual is an individual.

That said, much of libertarianism is about tolerance, individual rights and freedoms, less government telling people what to do.

I can't imagine many libertarians supporting THIS Republican party when you look at spying on Americans, the special deals for business with govt. funds, and the imposition through law of moral values.3/12/2006 10:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It's taken me a while to comment on this. A couple of weeks ago, Espresso Pundit had a short item on three of the Catholic Bishops who have responsibility over Arizona issuing a statement supporting the so-called Protect Marriage Arizona ammendment. He thinks that this is a watershed moment where we will someday look back on this and say that this is the day that Catholics started becoming an overwhelmingly Republican voting bloc. This seems to be a misunderstanding of the way Catholics think and vote in this country. It also is probably a healthy dose of wishful thinking, since the fastest growing voting group in this country is Hispanics, who are largely Catholic and Republicans keep making one-step-forward-two-steps-back inroads into the Latino community. I won't try to guess what Greg "Espresso Pundit" Patterson's denomination is, but given that he is married with kids, I'm guessing that it isn't Shaker. Something that I have noticed is that when a person tries to give me a lecture about how some liberal stance I have taken is in conflict with the church, or tries to tell me that a "good Catholic" (none of us are "good Catholics," that's what confession is for) should vote Republican, chances are that person is not a Catholic, only a conservative assuming that Catholic social teaching is confined to opposition to abortion and gay marriage. (The worst of this is George Bush using the term "culture of life," only thinking it applies to abortion and stem cell research. Doesn't he see it as ridiculous given his policies in Iraq and his love of the death penalty?) Many Catholics, "good" Catholics who attend mass regularly, disagree with the stances of the Church. This is something not just confined to liberals either, conservative parishioners suffer from the same sort of "Cafeteria Catholicism." Unfortunately, and this doesn't just apply to Catholics, many of us look to religion as a way to confirm whatever prejudices and lifestyle choices we were inclined to have anyway. So, I propose a deal on behalf of my fellow liberal Catholics. We will swallow your views of abortion and gay marriage, if conservatives adopt church views about the death penalty, war, poverty, conservation, rights of labor and the rights of migrants. Think we can work that out?|W|P|114218796548074947|W|P|I'm Ready to Make a Cynical Deal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nicely put...this is true with most religions I would bet.

I just can't imagine how those petitions will be circulated within church walls. Im not familiar with how politics works inside church walls. The Bishops gave permission to allow it to be circulated in the Parish if the priest allows it.

So that puts a thought in my mind...an immagination...of people bringing the petitions around to parishioners asking to support the Protect Marriage Act. It makes me reflect on what that would be like to be approached and how a person might react.

It makes me imagine some not wanting to sign it feeling like..."should I oppose this actively and tell others not to sign it?" or another reaction "should I just say 'not interested'?"

Up to the person and up to the voter I guess...but just seems unseemly in church walls.3/12/2006 03:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger StanForStudentCouncil|W|P|And what happens when the kid chooses to sit out the school Prayer.3/12/2006 08:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, I honestly like your idea. Why don’t you ask your brother to introduce a bill banning abortion except for the life of the mother while also ending all capital punishment? I promise I will call every Republican legislator in favor or the bill. I would gladly do away with the death penalty in exchange for an end to abortion.3/13/2006 01:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/13/2006 01:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/13/2006 01:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

Apparently you didn't read Ted's whole post. Would you also be willing to include more spending on anti-poverty programs (especially since poor women are much more likely to have abortions than rich women). Further, 61% of women having an abortion have previously had a live birth, so clearly, as one of the conclusions of the linked study indicates, economics plays a key role. As such, it is hard to suggest otherwise than that Republican economics that reduce funding for child care and ignore rising health care costs play a role (hint: cost of a birth, even if there are no complications, for a person with no health insurance: $3,000 minimum at most hospitals, cost of abortion: $500.)

If you are a woman, married or not, with kids, and don't have health insurance, the decision to get an abortion may boil down to simple economics. If your financial situation isn't very good, and you have a choice between $500 now and thousands in a few months, what do you suggest?

Now, here is my deal on a bill: A universal healthcare system for Arizona. And I'm willing to concede this: Put abortion clinics outside the purview of the system, so that birth only costs the copay cost for the hospital (say, $100?) while the abortion still costs $500 as it does now.3/13/2006 04:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|eli - you make a well-reasoned case except for one flaw. You attach a price to the value of a human life. I do not understand how someone who is for legalized abortion can talk about social justice. Where is the justice in taking an innocent human life? If a person cares about social compassion he/she would want to save lives AND have access to medical care, not keep killing the unborn until there is a health care system that he/she deems acceptable.

If it is about economics, the woman can go to one of the pro-life pregnancy centers in the state. She can tell them she would like to give her child up for adoption and have her medial costs covered or she will abort. I am pretty sure the center will help her out in order to save a life.3/13/2006 12:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, Eli is correct. Most women do get an abortion for the economic reason. If you (and I do mean you not a nonspecific you) want to truly reduce abortions, help raise the minimum wage, help raise the chances of a child support being paid (one of my former Qwest co-workers got a wage garnished child support check of $26-28 a month since her ex husband deliberately got a low paying job in the service industry where he did not have his tips garnished which apparently was a lot harder. She did not persue this because she was scared of what he would do to the children. I saw the scars, I do not blame her.) Also help get a single payer system created for the state/country, and of course making sure that child care is availible for working mothers (another co-worker of mine had to pay huge amounts because her two kids had been born too closely together for the state to consider them separate.) Work to make sure students also have access to comprehensive sex education that explains to them everything they need to know for when they become adults. Work for Plan B to be availible OTC.

If you truly, deep down inside, want to reduce the number of abortions, demanding it be illegal will do nothing to reduce them. And in fact will do little more then harm women and the children many will be leaving behind.3/13/2006 01:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|elizabeth – if it just an economic issue then just put the child up for adoption, no need to kill it. If there is still an issue of the expense of pre-natal and delivery then maybe it would be a good idea for the government to pay for those things only.

Are you listing to the argument you are making? A woman would really think, raise my minimum wage, provide childcare, and free healthcare and I won’t kill my unborn child.

As to comprehensive sex education, what is the big secret that we are keeping from our young people? Do you really think that there are kids who do not know what a condom is? Is the pill being hidden? I see adds on TV for different versions of the pill, how can it be more obvious. Most young people are on the internet and can easily got to the Planned Parenthood website and get more than enough information on birth control. They have plenty of information now. I don’t see how sex education would change anything.3/13/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

You are assuming that I would agree with you that abortion is a social injustice. In fact, if a child is not brought into the world in the first place, then it is hard to see how there is any injustice done-- there is nothing, just oblivion. The net result is no different than if, for example, the parents had gone out bowling that night instead of spending the night cuddled in bed. On the other hand, I do see a real and measurable social injustice done to someone who is forced to be pregnant (i.e. sick, in pain, and in some danger) if you make them remain that way for months. As for adoption, I agree that if someone wants to adopt, that this has the benefit of providing a child to someone who otherwise might not have one, but forcing someone to be pregnant and then telling them that if they sign over their child then you will pay their bill raises its own ethical questions.

And I'm not against working to reduce the number of abortions, it's just that the successes we have had in this regard over the past decade (the number of abortions have dropped since the early 1990's), via sex education, birth control and family planning, have been opposed by conservatives.

And I do see an economic problem with generationally unbalancing our population (for example, military recruiters are now having a tough time because there are a million less 18-24 year olds than there were in 2000, and we all know about Social Security) but my answer which certainly serves social justice well is this: instead of solving this problem by forcing women who don't way children to have them anyway, let's 1: do what I said, so that those who want but can't afford them, will have them, and 2: increase legal immigration quotas so that we fill up America with people who want to come here.3/13/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

Sex ed has changed things, already. We really began pushing it in schools in the early 1990's, and even anti-abortion websites will acknowlege that abortions are down by a quarter since reaching their peak about 1992, and that has been led by a decline in teen pregnancy.

I would just argue that if the sex ed that we've had, has worked, then why not have more of it (the same argument that Republicans are always using about tax cuts, even though from my point of view about all the Bush tax cuts have done is create a big deficit while companies have invested all their tax cut money in building factories and hiring workers in Asia-- but that is an argument for another day.)3/13/2006 02:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|eli

You said as a result of an abortion “there is nothing.” That is incorrect; there is a dead, unborn baby. That is something.

Stopping abortion does not force a person to be pregnant. Having sex causes that. Outlawing abortion stops a woman from having her unborn child killed by a ‘doctor.’

The number of abortions may have declined some since 1990’s but still is about 1,000,000 a year. Go back to 1972 and see if the rate has declined since then.

Solution 2, more immigration, is a valid idea but how do you know that an unborn baby does not also want to come and live in America?

If you look at the numbers from 1906 to 2006 it is quite correct sex ed has changed everything, unwed pregnancies are higher and there are more abortions.3/13/2006 03:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Damn...I am pro-choice, but all I was asking for was a little tolerance for my LGBT friends who would like to have a legal marriage.

We could fight tooth and nail on abortion, but I would hope that my position would be a little easier. I hope that as a state me might show some tolerance and fight the Protect Marriage Act. I also hope we might go further one day and even allow the marriage of same sex partners.3/13/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid-
Actually I said most not all are the result of economics. Is there a problem with reading what I said?

Here is a study done by the CDC in 2003. Read it and you can see why we said economics are such a factor.

Also it is not 'doctor' it is doctor. Any doctor puts the needs of the woman above her fetus because she is the patient.

The way you talk it seems that you would do well to remember there is a woman in all of this. A woman who has to take the enormous risk to her health to have a child. Not all women are able to do it. She should have all medical treatment availible to her up to and including an abortion if she feels it is necessary.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter on this blog. Go to mine if you insist on talking of it further.3/12/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some members of my adoring public have been begging me to throw my hat in the ring for Arizona Democratic Party Chair. I have to say that I will be unable to run for State Party Chair because I need to spend more time with my family. I know that I am an unmarried man with no children, but still, I need to spend more time with the wife and kids. Besides, it would interfere with my main ambition: becoming Major League Soccer commissioner so I can change the new dumb name of the New York team. My comments on that one here.|W|P|114218338207568567|W|P|Sherman Statement|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|About time you start spending time with the wife and kids Ted. They need more then the vast wealth you have you know.3/12/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't like to give corporate officials credit for anything, but once in a while one of them does something that deserves actual congratulations. US Airways President and CEO Doug Parker is not taking his bonus this year. The bonus would amount to $770,000. He decided that he couldn't in good concience take the bonus when he was asking employees to take a pay cut. The sad thing about this is that it is so unusual that we notice it.|W|P|114217469523790616|W|P|Wow, Actual Corporate Responsibility|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 01:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|That's not corporate responsibility; that's personal conscience. If the corporation were being responsible, the compensation committee wouldn't even allow such a bonus to be on the table to be spurned. The problem is seldom the integrity and ethics of corporate management, it is the incentives that the laxity of corporate governance gives to management to look to the short-term, to enrich themselves at the expense of owners and stakeholders, and to fail to plan for long-term responsible growth of the enterprise.3/11/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
I don't have any idea what to make of this. To the left is the picture of Jan Brewer that has been on her site, on the numerous materials that she has sent to voters (only part of her official duties, of course!) and on the wall of her office. To the right, a brand spanking new picture of her from her website. The old pic has been scrubbed from her site. Even if you go to the Wayback Machine, it can't be found. I was only able to dig it up because I had downloaded it before. It is still available on the Arizona Republican Party's site. I won't say anything about this. I won't even comment on the timing of this. I'll leave that up to you, my loyal readers.|W|P|114213977089484063|W|P|The "New" Jan Brewer|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/11/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Corti-slim? Or a trip to Brazil?3/12/2006 01:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|The best ever recent picture of Jan Brewer can be found here.

I downloaded it from the Arizona Daily Star in January 2006.3/12/2006 07:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I guess we don’t want to talk about the fact that Jan got her 2,625 Clean Election $5 donations in on January 17th. According to the Clean Election web site she is the only state wide candidate that is all done with the process.

Go Jan!3/12/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Good to know a Republican supports Clean Elections. Or, is she one of those that enjoys taking the money but will campaign against it the next time she gets a chance?3/12/2006 09:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Following up on tedski's post. So true, since she was one of the proponents of the ill-fated ballot resolution to do away with the program which thankfully wasn't on the ballot in 2004. Brewer was also a BIG proponent of Proposition 200, especially the voter provisions and is making sure the Grand Canyon State becomes the Diebold State with their tainted voting machines. Go Jan? Go vote early or go vote by mail because Arizona's voter laws are screwed up beyond belief and this month, especially in Maricopa County with the various municipal elections taking place, get ready for confusion, lawsuits, directed at the election's folk (for which Brewe r is one), resulting in more of your dollars going down the drain thanks to this modern day poll tax. Go Jan indeed. One may be first in collecting but Brewer (come what photo) still has to get past former Phoenix Mayor Skippy The Lap Dog Rimsza, as well as the Demo nominee in the general. Ism't also interesting it was Republicans who pissed and moaned about the Clean Elections program and yet are eager to get to that "money" come election time?3/12/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Travis|W|P|I always thought her old web site photo made her look like she'd just been goosed.

I think we should all use the one Zelph saved from now on. Great work, Zelph.

Brewer is an anti-democracy zealot. She deserves to go down hard.3/12/2006 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|As I have written before, clean elections has been very good for right-wing Republicans.

Skip Rimsza does not even have a chance of coming close to winning the primary. Jan is so popular with her party that they endorsed her during the primary.

I do not see how fighting voter fraud with a careful program of checking ID at the ballot is anti democracy. Fighting voter fraud is pro-democracy.

Vote by mail if you don’t like the program, it is a lot easier anyway.3/12/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Have to say this, that new photo makes her look like Mrs. Jackson, my marine magnet teacher in high school.

Of course Mrs. Jackson was a million times cooler.3/13/2006 01:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Oh, we're all thinking it, why not say it. Looks like Jan has had a little 'work' and is updating her image for the election. Jeez, I can almost see the sutures. I don't see any problem with dishing on this considering the 'metrosexual' bullshit the GOP slung at Kerry. We gotta start playing by the new rules instead of holding ourselves above the fray, so nobly, so unelectably...

So, nice face lift, Jan! How many is that now? Worried your party is gonna dump you for a trophy Secretary?3/13/2006 04:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Not being an expert in cosmetic surgery I did not realize that this was about a face-lift.

I hope if the Democratic candidate for Sec of State wants to win in November that he or she comes up with a better issue than Jan’s purported ‘work’3/13/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Az Rep ran a story on this last week. Her staff says the photo was taken in Dec. Zelph's photo was taken in Jan. So unless it's one of the worst plastic surgeons ever, I think we can eliminate her having work done.

My vote: Photoshop rules!3/13/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|It looks like Botox and a facelift... but it's still not as deceiving as the picture she used on her campaign signs in 2002... I think that was an old Glamour Shot.3/11/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This may all be premature speculation on the part of the people that told me, but what the heck...that's what blogs are for, right? The earlier speculation was that should Harry Mitchell step aside as State Democratic Party Chair, Fred DuVal would take his place. DuVal is a nationally recognized party power broker who served as White House Director of Protocol for Bill Clinton. He had been talked about as a possible candidate for Secretary of State, but decided late last year not to run. DuVal has also apparently taken his name out of consideration for party chairman as well. I have heard that Mitchell has not made a decision yet. But the fact that DuVal felt the need to say he wasn't available makes me think that at least some leaders in the party think that he has. Here's a way to turn the discussion around: does the unavailability of a successor the caliber of DuVal make Mitchell less likely to abandon the chairmanship? So, where does the party turn for a chairman? The interim chairman would be Peggy Toomey Hammann, who has already been interim chairman once when Jim Pederson stepped aside to run for the US Senate. Her main duty would be to preside over the meeting where a permanent chair is elected. But who would it be? The idle speculation is that David Waid, the current Executive Director of the party, would run for chairman. There isn't, as far as I know, precedent for this. Of course, we've had EDs that might as well have been chairs, but that was de facto rather than de jure. Waid has shown himself to be a capable executive director, weathering the departure of Pederson mid-term and managing the state party's activities in the off-year elections. However, will the activists accept a paid staff member being thrust into party leadership? The talk of Waid as chairman may be more speculation of people with too much time on their hands, as happens often in politics, or it could be an indication that Mitchell is close to an announcement that he is running agasinst J. D. Hayworth. NB - This would be the third party chairman the Democrats have had over the last year. We have been making fun of the Republicans for their turnover in staff (at least three EDs since Matt Salmon became chair), but the chairman has remained the same all of that time. Of course, our chairs have stepped down to run for higher office, their guy ran for chair because he didn't want to get beaten by Janet Napolitano again.|W|P|114213855940668112|W|P|State Party Reshuffle?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/11/2006 10:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well...

As any of MY loyal readers know, I am not happy about this overall turn of events... BUT

I think David Waid would make a great chair. It is unprecendented, but I think it is needed.

David is from Brooklyn, New York and knows a lot of the same people and is friends with a lot of the same people my parents were friends with and helped elect my mom to the various positions she was elected to and eventually elected Mario Cuuomo Governor of New York.

David knows one thing that I think Arizona really needs to focus on and that is grassroots politics. One to One. One on One politics.

The major problem in Arizona across both political parties is that neighbors rarely know neighbors and people rarely talk to eachother outside of social circles and work. That is a serious problem.

I believe politics can remedy this and I think that there is no one better to handle this task of neighbor to neighbor communication than David waid.3/13/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|There is an office Fred DuVal won't consider running for ??????

I'm shocked!3/11/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Serbian and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milošević was found dead in his cell this morning. He was in the middle of a trial for war crimes carried out in the 1990s in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Milošević was a Communist Party official in Kosovo early in his career. After looking around at the grievances between Serbs and Albanians in the region, he came to the realization that hate for that neighbor that looks and talks different trumps talk of world revolution any day. Sounds like a certain congressional candidate I know. A phenomenon that I have found fascinating is the proliferation of pro-Milošević websites. I found one a while ago that also supported far right Russian nationalism and Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko (this site by an American by the way), I can't find that one. But I found these helpful, rational sites. I'm waiting for them to claim that MI-5 had something to do with his death.|W|P|114210151061051814|W|P|"Slobo" Found Dead In Cell|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/11/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When I see internecine conflicts between the pachyderms, I have the same feeling my mom did when she was watching a World Cup match between France and Italy a few years ago: can I root for both of them to lose? Well, in this case I can, and it's a big possibility. Of course, it means that Randy Graf wins. The big fight on the CD 8 Republican card is between Mike Hellon and Steve Huffman to be the moderate alternative to Graf. Mainstream Republican leaders, both locally and nationally, are worried about a Graf victory, since they believe it is as good as handing the seat back to the Democrats. Even Jim Kolbe has voiced his concern about a Graf victory, leading some to wonder if Kolbe would endorse a Democrat against him if he were nominated. The trouble is, with two strong moderate candidates, Graf could easily come out of the primary as the nominee. The pressure is on for one of the two to drop out. When I say one of the two, I mean Mike Hellon. The powers that be see Huffman as a stronger candidate, conservative enough to be credible among primary voters, but without the more extreme rhetoric and record of Graf. Word is out that Kolbe and John McCain have been asking Hellon to drop out. Hellon hasn't made any indications that he will drop out, however. Some are saying that this is personal. Last year, the term-limited Huffman let it be known that he was interested in the state senate seat still occupied by Hellon's ex-wife, Toni Hellon. This isn't exactly the sort of thing that endears you to the Hellon family, and it isn't the sort of thing you would do if you were on very good terms in the first place. The conflict has stayed out of the press for the most part. A couple of weeks ago, however, during the vote to extend the life of the "TIF" district for Rio Nuevo, there were comments in an article in the Arizona Daily Star from Sen. Hellon questioning the way the deal was cut. Huffman has taken the lead on the Rio Nuevo issue and it was seen by some as a way for her to undercut her ex's opponent. Some Hellon supporters think that House Speaker Jim Weiers's support for Rio Nuevo is only his way of weighing in on Huffman's side. This ignores the fact that Weiers had been a co-sponsor of the origninal TIF legislation years ago. Does that sound totally obscure? Does that sound like people reading way too much into things? Yeah, but that gives you an idea of the schoolyard backbiting that we'll see more of over the next few months. They don't come together now, and they'll have to come together around Graf after the primary.|W|P|114209435998768965|W|P|Huffman v Hellon: UFC Cage Action!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Adding to what Tedski has said...I have heard that some of big timer, big money Republicans in town have also been working hard to back Huffman and to back off Hellon.

My attempt at being a prognositcator. What I would look for, of course, is the next reporting date for finances from the FEC. You might look for name like "what the computer mouse does when you make it work" and that "very precious stone" that so many cherish from Africa.

Afterward, I would look for arguments that Mr. Hellon just can't compete with that kind of money.3/12/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Mike Hellon is a former national committeeman and a very shrewd person. He is also quite principled and doubtless made the decision to enter this race based on both his analysis of his chances and the thought that he could make a difference if he won. If he dropped out, he would be admitting that he had miscalculated in the first area and that someone else could do a better job. Couple those two areas of consideration with the fact that both Hellons actively dislike Huffman and I can't see him dropping out. Besides, you can win that primary with 35-40% of the vote. Hellon has as much a chance of doing that as Huffman in a district where both of them likely have equal name ID. But...I don't think either one can beat Graf even if the other one drops out. Today's Arizona GOP favors a candidate such as Graf and he will be their nominee.3/12/2006 08:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Rex, nice rationale and I am glad that you think he will stick this one out. I know people on that side of the fence that want him out badly. It will be nice to see two candidates sticking it to our local Repub. establishment...both Hellon and Graf.

I agree with you about Graf...and with that said, I see this as a pick up right now for the demos, but it is early.

Roger3/12/2006 09:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Appreciate the feedback, Roger. I am, actually, a former Republican and know both of these candidates from my tenure in the GOP. They are BOTH fundamentally decent people and I especially appreciate (since I work in the public schools) what Huffman has done to support education, often in opposition to those in the Maricopa-led House leadership. However, they are both doctrinaire conservatives on most other issues. They would both be more right-wing than Kolbe, although Gentleman Jim did a good job in disguising himself as a "moderate" by voting in favor of most pro-choice positions, supporting the National Endowment for the Arts and supporting gay rights while accumulating a horrendous record in the areas of education, the environment, taxes and health care. Graf would be Trent Franks with patent-leather hair and that IS the candidate who triumphs in today's GOP. "Moderates" thought they could find some rapprochement with these folks, but watch how many primaries "moderates" win from here on out.3/10/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gale Norton resigned today as Head Despoiler and Seceretary of the Interior for the Bush Administration. She made sure to tell the press that this has nothing to do with Jack Abramoff. And I believe her. Oh wait, I don't.|W|P|114204187156338175|W|P|I Guess In Tribute We Should Go Strip Mine in a Wilderness Area|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/10/2006 08:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Earth First!

We'll mine the other planets next!3/10/2006 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I nominate you to be the first to go to Mars then Phx Kid. :)3/11/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Only if you will come with me.3/10/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Senator Marilyn Jarrett has died of a stroke. Despite her being on the opposite side of just about everything from me, my condolences go out to her husband Howard and her children and grandchildren.|W|P|114202299004385575|W|P|Sen. Marilyn Jarrett|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Second your condolences.

Liberals and conservatives all go home to the same God after we leave this earth, and in the context of eternity, all the bitter struggles that seem so all-important right now probably pale into insignificance.3/10/2006 06:52:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Democrats that tend to irritate people like me fall into two categories: the Joe Lieberman type that yeah, tends to vote with us eighty or ninety percent of the time, but picks out poll tested issues here and there to show independence. The tendency of this type to run to the nearest microphone to show their independence by trashing and undermining other members of the party is even more irritating. The second is the Henry Cuellar type. They vote the right way only once, when they vote for House Speaker, Board Chairman or whatever the equivalent is in the body they serve in. After that, they can't be counted on to go with us on any issue, ever. The media will talk as though they are deal makers or moderates, but those titles imply that you to actually vote with the Democrats once in a while. These types love to think themselves "Mavericks," but it's really hard to call yourself a maverick when you are helping the people who run everything. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon is the second type, the Cuellista. At first, I was willing to cut the guy a break the way I did for Paul Johnson when he was mayor of Phoenix. Phoenix is a more conservative town than Tucson is, so I can't expect the guy to be Tom Volgy or George Miller. Two years ago, I was ready to totally give up on the man when he endorsed Andrew Thomas for Maricopa County Attorney. This is a guy that wrote books about how women should know their place, and seems to be more willing to prosecute four-dollar-an-hour migrants than the trigger happy yahoos who take them prisoner. There is nothing in Andrew Thomas that should lead a Democrat in this day and age to support him, but somehow Gordon found a way to. Now, there is a rumor that Gordon will endorse the Protect Marriage Arizona Initiative. What the heck for? I'm sorry, I don't think the city of Phoenix is so conservative that Gordon not endorsing this would somehow hurt him in an election. In fact, the City of Phoenix has domestic partnership benefits for its employees (which this initiative would outlaw). If he really believed in what the initiative said, he would have already worked to get rid of those. This smacks more of Gordon trying to show how close he is to Republicans, particularly Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil, than any sort test of conscience or going with his constituents. Here, various forms of domestic partnership recognition have been supported by Supervisor Ray Carroll, Mayor Bob Walkup, and former Councilman Fred Ronstadt. All of these are Republicans. Are Tucson Republicans more liberal than Phoenix Democrats? Is there a major Democratic issue which Phil Gordon has been willing to associate himself with, or is he going to give George Bush a big kiss on his next visit to Phoenix, a la Cuellar? NB - I have no trouble with moderate or even conservative Democrats. I worked on Marsha Arzberger's campaign in 2000. She's a great example of a conciencious, conservative Democrat. I don't like her environmental votes, for example, but she is representing her constituency and it also comes from the way she was brought up. I can handle that. The ones that bug me are these folks that seem to go out of their way to show independence, as if some how voters are so stupid that they won't notice they are Democrats. Or even worse, as if they are ashamed that they are Democrats.|W|P|114200119275355005|W|P|So, Why Even Bother?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/10/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|That's an awfully long rant to base on a rumor, Tedski.

Rumors are often wrong. (e.g. your previous post about Laura Knapsack (sp?) running for Senate)

Perhaps we should wait for facts before condemning the man?

Just a thought.3/10/2006 05:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I would love to see the mayor actually come out and argue publicly against the amendment. I encourage him to do so...I hope that he will do so...and urge him to do so.3/11/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Demrunner|W|P|I find it disturbing that Phil would Align himself with the Center for Arizona Policy the group putting forward this ammendment. On their 2006 issue brief CAP claimed that gays were more likely to be serial killers and child molesters. I mean is it really smart to align yourself with that group? Besides that if you are running why would you want to piss of a solid Democratic base. No matter, this just help Terry beat Phil in the primary or the general if he runs as an independent.3/09/2006 06:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The talk about Sen. Harry Mitchell running against J. D. Hayworth is still only that, talk. People I have spoken to that are close to him tell me he is far from making a final decision on the matter. He has family considerations here. He's been in political office for quite some time now, and was, until now, looking forward to a life that is a bit quieter. There is now a group of folks (saying "organization" may be a bit too strong) that have put up a website called Draft Harry Mitchell for Congress. The aim seems to be to show Senator Mitchell that there is a groundswell of people ready to support his candidacy. The site, as far as I know, is only a day old but has twenty five posts asking Mitchell to run. Some of the messages seem to be a bit cheesy, but darnit, I want sycophancy like that! I was involved in the Draft Clark movement in 2003. If you remember, there were also "Draft Hillary" and "Draft Gore" movements that year. The main difference was that Clark actually wanted to run for president and the other two didn't. The website can be a useful tool to show the press and political pros that there is interest, but I don't know if it will necessarilly prompt Mitchell to run if he isn't otherwise inclined to do so. But, if this creates interest in the race, more power to them. NB - Two notes on the responses to the last Mitchell post: I don't think he'll resign his Senate seat to run. He will have to step down as state party chair though. I have no idea if Hayworth will be indicted.|W|P|114195703649403508|W|P|J. D. Hayworth Left the Door Open, Now there is a Harry Mitchell Draft|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, I've known Harry since 2000 when he helped me get involved with the Democratic Party and YDs in general.

But aside from my love for Harry and my support for him whatever he does, I do think that its pretty sad that the ASU Young Democrats waste their time and effort on drafting an anti Larry King candidate rather than say focusing on winning the Tempe city council race, repealing the Tempe party ordinance and the Tempe Smoking Ban?

Instead they waste their time on stupid websites like this ...

Its pretty sad when i have to say that UoA has better priorities than ASU.3/09/2006 11:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Yikes. Trashing two YD chapters in one swipe. I think that might be a LITTLE unfair - especially in a super public forum like this (yes Tedski, stop blushin). Credit where credit is due, UofA is the second biggest YD chapter in the nation and ASU is the third.

If they wanna focus on getting Harry to run, so be it. If they wanna focus on getting King to win, so be it. I'm just happy they want to beat JD. When my boots hit asu a few years ago, youth activsm was non existant on that campus (FYI it is why those things you want to repeal passed) - finding a handful of people who even KNEW who JD was would have been a feat.

My point I guess ... like I've said on my blog ... let's do our best up here in CD 5 to keep this from turning into CD 8 (no offense to my kin down south, but no matter what side you are on in that primary I'm sure you know what I mean).3/09/2006 11:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|My point I guess ... I hope you do your best up there in CD 5 to turn this into CD 8 (no offense to my kin up north, but no matter what side you are on in the primary I'm sure you still support democracy).3/09/2006 11:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I don't have a problem with Harry Mitchell's supporters trying to convince him to run. However, the
Draft-Mitchell website says--

"Congressman J.D. Hayworth has taken center stage in the ugly Washington, D.C. culture of corruption. It's time for a change, and there's only one man with the strength and integrity to clean things up: Harry Mitchell"

It's too bad that they have to attack King right out of the gate by implying that Larry King does not have the "strength and integrity to clean things up". Especially when King had the guts to get into the race early.3/10/2006 12:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Joe Bagodoenuts|W|P|This smells of Cegilas and Duckworth in IL.3/10/2006 12:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/10/2006 01:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/10/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Not even close to cegalis and duckworth. Duckworth has no elective experience, Mitchell was on the tempe city council, was mayor of tempe for like 90 years (while still a school teacher), and has been a state senator.

Cegalis ran 2 years ago and nearly pulled an upset over Hyde. King stayed out of it in 04 completely, but when he did run in 02 he didn't make it out of the primary.

Oh yeah, Harry Mitchell was King's campaign chair in that race in 02.

So -- HARDLY the same.

Also to my cd8 friends. When i made my joke about our cd not becoming like yours - I was referencing how nasty squabbles between SUPPORTERS is getting. Just look at the old comments on this blog for evidence.3/10/2006 02:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|What do we know about Harry Mitchell and the issue of eminent domain?3/10/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger StanForStudentCouncil|W|P|Just so everyone knows the Young Democrats at ASU haven't done anything offcially with the Draft Mitchell campiagn, none of us worked on that website (none of us know how to work on websites.) Serveral of us have written on the site because as individuals we would like to see him run. For myself, I wrote on the site because ive met the Senator and I like him, I dont know anything about Larry King. I do know that he hasnt made any effort to come speak to the Young Democrats, after recieving the same invatation that we sent to almost every candidate running for almost every office (almost eveyone else has come to a meeting). I'm sure hes a great guy and as a club we do not endorse in a primary. The Young Democrats of ASU have no stance on this issue.

As for the City Council race in Tempe, the reason why we havent been as acive as some would hope is because the candidate and campaign after being asked many times for events, GOTV, Canvassing, and any other volunteer needs they may have, they haven't given us anything that we can help them with.

Why the hell would I put my time in allowing people to poison me after I turn 21 and can go to a bar?3/10/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well, "stan for student council"


I don't mean you, I meant a very well known asu young democrat who likes to get their nose into all this drama.

And don't give me that crap. We never waited for Yaser to "give us a plan" in fact we had to ressurect his darn campaign.

The only reason you guys are not involved in Tempe is because your two most influential members live in Chandler and want to work for Trinity Donovan. Thats fine as I worked for Greg Stanton in 2000 for the same reason and we ignored Tempe but I do wish they would also work to elect Phil Westbrooks as well.

But oh well ...

I'm just very disapointed in this whole situation.3/10/2006 07:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger StanForStudentCouncil|W|P|I agree

a few things:
1.My new blog (I can feel myself becoming a tool) has a post on my thoughts about this whole thing from my very limited perspective.

2.Certain people who may be young and may be democrats but who are not currently attending ASU, while they are still loved and respected; do not get to decide what actions our club makes. An email was sent out about the website, so now that i and Joaquin know about it another email will be sent out with a link to info about Larry King (No, not live.)

3.Yaser was a pet project for you guys and we saw what happened. thats not anyones fault but his. I do however think it isnt out of the question to expect our leaders to come to us once in a while not the other way around. but that can go both ways.

I dont know! I agree with a lot of what your saying3/09/2006 02:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yesterday's discussion on an immigration bill in the Democratic caucus:
Rep. Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix): This bill is sh*t. Rep. Linda Lopez (D-Tucson): I would like to remind the members that the mikes are on. Gallardo: This bill is still sh*t.
|W|P|114193907929402493|W|P|My Thoughts Exactly|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 11:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|LOL! If I lived in his district (I'm in LD17) he'd have my vote, for honesty alone.3/10/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Classy!3/09/2006 03:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I get the word from the street, you know, because I'm right there man. I'm from where the life is real. Just like Howard Devoto: I am the street where you live. Anyway, the word on the street, well, maybe just Central Avenue or West Washington, is that Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Harry Mitchell will be stepping aside to run against J. D. Hayworth. Mitchell had been the phenominally popular Mayor of Tempe before serving in the State Senate. Hayworth, on the other hand, has been turning in poor polling numbers for a man who is constantly on television and has been in congress for over a decade. One early poll showed Mitchell beating Hayworth 43-42, and even showed Hayworth struggling against Scottsdale attorney Larry King. Mitchell's popularity among Tempe voters would make him a formidable candidate against Hayworth. In fact, the only thing I can think of that would make it hard for Mitchell to win this seat would be if the Republicans nominated another popular former Tempe mayor. Oh...I spoke too soon. See what happens when I mention stuff on this blog? Former Tempe mayor Neil Giuliano has talked about running against Hayworth in the Republican primary. Giuliano may be too moderate to win a his party's primary, however. It is difficult enough to beat an incumbent congressman in a primary (Arizona's last and only primary casualty was Sen. Henry Fountain Ashurst in 1940), that much harder when you don't exactly excite the base of your party. I also find it hard to believe that an openly gay candidate can win a Republican congressional primary, especially in the East Valley. Yes, I know, but Jim Kolbe was in office for years before he was outed. He also had had to fight harder in primaries than any long time congressman should expect to since then. This is one of those seats that makes me seriously entertain the possibility of a Democratic takeover of the house. Congressional District 5, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe and Fountain Hills, is not exactly an area that would traditionally be considered competitive, but there are seats like this (Tom Delay's seat and Duke Cunningham's former seat are others) that are good "steals" for the party. A few of these here and there, plus a near-table run in more competitive areas, could flip enough seats to give a narrow Democratic victory. Hey, one can always hope.|W|P|114190343121421621|W|P|Mitchell for Congress?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 05:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|If that is the case, and Harry resigns now, Meg will be recommended and probably will take his place in the Senate. Eddie will also be the most likely person to replace Meg giving both the advantage of incumbency come Nov and a chance to take the entire D17 slate back.3/09/2006 06:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nice to have excellent candidates running here. Could be a big year.3/09/2006 06:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Paul Eckerstrom|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/09/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Wow...Paul...nice to have you here. The possible indictment of Hayworth is obviously huge. I wonder how many more nationally are going to get the trip to the courthouse?3/09/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AzDem215|W|P|CD 5 has an excellect candidate running: Larry King.

Yes it is likely JD will be indicted. For the rest of the story: (ala: Paul Harvey) Harry running, is about the Gov. running up a big win (65%+) to ensure her continued political career, after her re-election and lame duck governorship.

Fred Duval as chair is hardly a plus for the state party that continues to be torn between progressive (Dean)politics and the Democrats Licking Corporate boots.

This is simply the betrayal of a dedicated Democrat (King) by the less-than-dedicated.3/09/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well... as far as Meg and Ed go. Hardly. The Maricopa County Board of supervisors chooses the replacement, and I highly doubt the super majority Republican Hack Supervisors are going to nominate any cahill for any seat in any time period.

Mitchell is running because Marianne says he could run. Period. And Rahm Emmanuel was calling nearly every day.

Larry is a great public servent but as stated in the paper and in person: Harry Mitchell was there for him when no one else was ( 2002 Primary ) and its only proper to step aside and support Harry 100%

As far as state chair... there are a few qualifications above all

1. raise money
2. raise money
3. raise money
4. raise money
5. pick good people to run your coordinated campaign3/09/2006 10:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|a final comment on cd5.

you forgot chandler which has had HUGE population growth over the past couple of years and that means no voter history. So you don't REALLY know how those Republicans, Democrats, Independents will vote until they vote.

It also inclusdes West Mesa. Which if any of you have ever been to Don Carlos and the 101, i encourage you to. I've canvassed in South Tucson and South Phoenix and some parts of that area of Tempe\Mesa look worse than areas of South Tucson and South Phoenix.

Its a heavily Hispanic area with LD 18 having nearly 30% Hispanic population.( largest for the east valley LDs - gerrymander? )

There are a lot of "Secrets" about CD5 that people rarely look at , except obviously the DCCC. Turnout in just about every past election has been in predominately White North Scottsdale and Chandler with Tempe being the Democratic votes.

When you look at the precincts in CD5, you will see about 11 precincts in North, North Scottsdale with MAX voter registration and turnout. This means that about 2,400 people are registered to vote ( about 95% registration ) and about 80%+ vote in a given election . Constrast that to some West Mesa precincts or Tempe precincts with 400 registered Democrat majorities and 35% turn out to vote.3/09/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Could Giuliano run as an independent? There's a large independent and moderate base in CD5.

Of course, fundraising would be difficult... but he's got a lot of name recognition and contacts...3/09/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You never know Tom, if LD17 does not give any other names? Especially since you know how a certain person can be?3/09/2006 03:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Phil A. Buster|W|P|Elizabeth

By state law, the local party must nominate three people for the Board's consideration. If the local party gets cute and nominates Meg along with two less desirable candidates, I still doubt the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are going to choose her. I'm not sure it's fair to accuse the Sups of being partisan hacks when the only purpose served by Harry quitting is to give the presumptive Democratic nominees the advantage of incumbancy.

Harry is in the last year of his term, and does not need to resign to run.3/09/2006 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Be careful what you wish for.

If JD gets indicted too quickly there might be time for a strong Republican candidate to step into the breach and win in November.3/09/2006 11:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well Phil, it was a thought. :)