Ernesto Portillo Jr. had a small bit on me this morning castigating me for castigating the Star. Even better, he spelled my last name right. If they misspelled my name in an item about misspellings, a smart ass like me would have had a field day.
I think Portillo missed my point though. I have heard gripes from several reporters that Jim Pederson is "never in Tucson" (whether it be cs or sc), and sometimes this ends up in print. It is silly given how often Pederson is down here, and it seemed sillier to allude to that on a weekend when Pederson was in Tucson and even had a press conference. I also have to wonder where the complaints are about Jon Kyl, who despite being a University of Arizona graduate, seems to have forgotten where Tucson was until it became obvious that Pederson was running.
I also have to give some props to Portillo. I have a great deal of respect for him and his parents, who are family friends. I hope that his byline on the Political Notebook is an indication that he will be more involved with day-to-day political coverage at the Star. As many of you know, I have had serious problems with political coverage (or the non-existence of it) at the morning paper, this has been despite some very good reporters on the political beat. Maybe the Star's moving Portillo to the Political Notebook is an indication that the editors are taking political coverage seriously again.
Oh, Neto, if you are going to quote my blog...at least give the name of it. It's all about traffic, right?
NB - Although they spelled my name right, the Star, Tucson Citizen, Arizona Republic and Tucson Weekly have confused me and my brother in the past. The Weekly's was the most amusing, since it was in an item complaining that Kathleen Dunbar confused me with him.|W|P|114632537581146232|W|P|Look Ma, I Made the Paper!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|what is the deal with all the "Janet was not tops in the women Prez polls?" Last I checked she was running for re-election for GOVERNOR rather then President. Tedski|W|P|Sorry, Kid, I don't count hanging out at a tony country club connecting with the voters. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Geez louise people, he is just joking around. *rolls eyes* Ted likes to make jokes, and be snarky. Why else would this blog be so freaking popular? This is free publicity for each campaign, you really think the candidates are going to complain he was teasing them? GOPinsider|W|P|Yes - two Andrew Greeley's - the priest/author and the PR consultant who's a full-time Tucsonan.Kind of funny that Melissa Manas would be listed twice since she is Patty's webmaster.
Eli Blake|W|P|Lars Pederson is also listed up at the top with a bio, and then again in the listing.
NB - I'm lucky that Spidel spilled the beans on this. Otherwise, I would have had to make another guess...progressive party switcher and former legislator from Northern Arizona...hmmm..."Buckey" O'Neill?|W|P|114626369324304271|W|P|Boy Named Sue for Senate?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|I have to wonder about his sincerity in terms of even being a Democrat. As I recall, he was not term limited out, but chose not to run for re-election when they drew the district lines because Flagstaff was thrown in with the reservation. He retired because he concluded (correctly) that a Republican couldn't win from that district. But if he wanted to switch parties then, it's not like a Democrat from Flagstaff won't be listened to by voters on the reservation (just ask Ann Kirkpatrick.) It's more a matter of he wasn't willing to run for the legislature as a Democrat. That immediately makes his 'progressive' credentials suspect. Kevin|W|P|yup... fell into the trap. spilled it from the pressure of the rum and the rebellion. not so much the romanism. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|BNS? Eli Blake|W|P|boredinaz:Actually, I have no problems with former Republicans running as Democrats, IF I believe their conversion is sincere. I voted for Wes Clark in the 2004 primary and intend to vote for Slade Mead this year.
My problem is when I smell a rat. Verkamp made the specific decision not to run for re-election because he didn't feel he could win as a Republican in the newly redrawn district. Not because he thought he couldn't win as a person who was from the quarter of the district that is not on the reservation, or whatever, but because he couldn't win as a Republican. So at that time he placed party loyalty to the GOP ahead of a desire to serve his constituency and an opportunity to continue doing so if he'd switched parties then.
So, it's not about the party switching, it's about the WHY he is switching parties. I smell a rat, and when I heard the name the thought popped into my head that the GOP could be setting him up to run against Pederson in the primary for the purpose of running a smear campaign.
I'm not saying that I have any evidence that this is so, but neither do you have any proof it's not.
Eli Blake|W|P|I collected my thoughts about Verkamp running for Senate and posted them here Nonpartisan|W|P|Anybody remember what Verkamp said when he decided not to run? "Maybe if my name were John Yazzie Begay." Um, not funny, John.Anybody remember when he got pulled over in Flagstaff with a blood alcohol level of over twice the legal limit? Or the second time that happened?
Now if Randall Gnant had decided to run, I'd be all about it. But Verkamp? I voted for the guy every election he ran, but he's simply not qualified enough, or together enough, to run for Senate against Pederson.
GOPinsider|W|P|I would say he's probably sincere about this. I ran into Verkamp about a year ago and he was raving about the book "What's the matter with Kansas?" and talking about how the GOP had deserted him. Not really a surprise that he's gone all the way to the other side now. Of course that doesn't mean he has a prayer of winning the primary. union guy|W|P|I think we've missed one of the major points in this discussion: why would anyone, especially a progressive, actually support Verkamp at this point?Jim Pederson is not perfect, but he is viable. Verkamp will never be able to raise enough money to even compete with Pederson or Kyl, so why aren't Spidel and other progressives encouraging him to run for an office that he can actually win and create change? Why isn't Verkamp running against Renzi or for Secretary of State or State Treasurer? Is this run just symbolic and, if so, why back it?
We need real change, not symbolic change. Good candidates too often run for offices they can't win to make a point, when they could be making change by running for something a little lower down the political rung. We need to encourage the Verkamps and the Latases of the world to help the progressive movement by running for the leg or state offices that they can win. Jeff Latas would be a great legislator and lives in a district he might be able to take away a Republican seat. But he's running for Congress instead.
As progressives, we need people running at every level, and we should be honest with people about that and about their chances. If we're not, we're not helping the movement, we're hurting it.
Lofty Donkey, a site that I am now linking so the capo of that site can stop complaining, has posted a letter from soon to be ex-Rep. Laura Knaperek to ASU student body president Cori Widmer claiming that she is merely a humble member of the legislature and has no control whatsoever over university tuitions. She is correct, but only in the most narrow sense since she votes on university budgets. When there is a shortfall, universities turn to tuition hikes to make up for it. Apparently, Knaperek has trouble seeing the connection, since, as Signore Asino helpfully documents on his blog, she has routinely voted to under fund the universities, and even voted for budget cuts. (Lofty Donkey even quoted from the Daily Wildcat, which was probably painful for an ASU man)
Knaperek claims in her letter:
Legislators are committed to fully funding every student and making sure every student graduates in a timely manner.That's right. The legislative leadership has been well known for its high regard for students and our state universities. Knaperek and her colleagues wouldn't have to cut university budgets unless they were forced to. She says it's the fault of...okay...you know what is coming, so all together now... It is Janet Napolitano's fault. Knaperek's argument is that it is all the fault of the Board of Regents, and she helpfully points out that Governor Napolitano is an ex officio member. Knaperek's letter, available on Lofty Donkey, attempts to blame the Regents, but she also admits that the legislature provides one third of the funding for the universities. Apparently, she doesn't realize that if someone messes with a source that provides a third of your money, you have to make it up somewhere. Pretty slick of Knaperek to try to blame the Governor though. Does that mean that it is also ex officio regent Tom Horne's fault too? Of course it isn't. The letter smacks of an argument that Knaperek probably doesn't buy, and I doubt Widmer buys the argument either or it would not have magically appeared on the Lofty Donkey site. This letter and these claims have more to do with election year politics than anything else. Last year's buzzsaw that Knaperek ran into regarding the spousal rape bill was organized by ASU students, so now she realizes that she has to at least pretend that she represents student interests. NB - Lofty Donkey features a picture of newly enthroned Senator Ed Ableser addressing a student protest. Ableser did that thing that politicians always seem to do: they feel like they need to wear a t-shirt to show support at an event, so they put the t-shirt on over the shirt and tie they are wearing. This thing always bugs the heck out of me. Geez, Ed.|W|P|114626115948386692|W|P|Knaperek to Students: It's All the Governor's Fault|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Tony GOPrano|W|P|Knaperek should have run for State Treasurer; she could have beaten Dean Martin. Looks like we are going to be stuck with the "Boy Senator" as the next State Tresurer. You think Dave Peterson is crooked....watch out for Martin!! Forgetaboutit!!! Tedski|W|P|'zactly...who knew they were so flush? The way we had to find out was when it turned out the Executive Director had his hand in the till.Bring Back Patrick McWhortor!
Anyhow, Rep. Linda Sánchez used the following chestnut, which she has apparently used before. Those of you that have seen her sister Loretta speak will know that she always falls back on the "No one thought I could beat Bob Dornan" thing, even though that was ten years ago. So, both of them have their rhetorical crutches.
Given that this is a rhetorical crtuch, it comes in the form of a top 10 list, because top ten lists are always funny.
"Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans" by Linda Sanchez 10. The only time they believe in fiscal restraint is when the dinner bill comes. 9. His idea of getting to second base is fondling my stock portfolio. 8. He thinks that Emily's List is a call girl service. 7. His idea of oral stimulation is getting me to recite the Contract with America. 6. He thinks that white pantyhose and pearls are sexy--and you should see what he wants me to wear. 5. Because when Republicans say that they want to create opportunities for minorities, that means they want to date me and Loretta. 4. Despite all the hype, I still can't find his weapon of mass destruction. 3. His pending prison term for political corruption is just another excuse for him to be emotionally unavailable. 2. Republicans are only interested in screwing the poor. 1. Because they make love like they make war: they lie to get in and don't have a plan for what to do once they get there.|W|P|114625179182292339|W|P|Why Linda Sanchez Doesn't Date Republicans|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|I'm lucky. I married a Democrat. Jane Arizona|W|P|I couldn't figure out the "obvious reason' for the anonymity, either. My guess was that this person had a conflict of interest and would have to resign from another position first, but it's not a terrible breach of ethics to announce that you're interested in running. Whomever this person is, he doesn't stand a chance against Pederson. Good night, and good luck.
Eli Blake|W|P|Actually, if Gutierrez or someone else ran at Pederson from the left, it might end up helping him (since he is way out in front already). This is the same scenario that we had in the 2002 governor's race, and Gutierrez' attacks on the governor as 'too conservative,' his highlighting some of her more moderate positions to contrast with his own, and his initial reluctance to endorse her actually did a lot to help inure her against Salmon's attacks claiming that she was a liberal. She also got a lot of positive press just by virtue of winning the primary.I just don't think Alfredo realizes this.
On balance, I'd still rather see Pederson be able to focus exclusively on Kyl and not have a primary opponent, but there are benefits to a Democrat in Arizona having a not-very-competitive primary opponent, especially one running from the left.
Tedski|W|P|Leonard Clark is still running? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|has Clark gotten out of jail yet? eckeric|W|P|"Collins also said the Republican-backed legislative plan would have violated federal law by forcing schools to divert federal funds they receive for poverty-related programs to cover the remaining costs of teaching English."This always seemed to be the biggest problem with the plan.
Eli Blake|W|P|The irony is, that if the fines accumulate long enough, then it will be funded.They've dug their own hole on this one.
Eli Blake|W|P|My suggestion, therefore, is to do nothing except wait for the legislature. Then either the legislature will pass a bill to adequately fund ELL programs, or the legislature will adequately fund ELL programs at the rate of one million dollars per day.
Nice to see the President is promoting from within the White House.
Craig|W|P|He's been called a 'loyal critic'.Sure - loyal to Bush and his administration to the detriment of the country.
leathej1|W|P|A licky boom-bom down."Above all, he showed us there was a human worth in every individual," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.This ended up in his e-mail as:
"Above all, he showed us there was a human worth in every individual," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz. "It does not matter that Chavez was a communist. Rumors that communists have murdered millions of their own people are racist, capitalist lies."Um, okay. Warden sends out such doctored quotes in different colors, but many e-mail programs don't display the colors, so who would know? The Star has asked Warden to stop sending the doctored quotes and representing them as the Star's. This led to a high minded response from Warden to Star Editor Teri Hayt, who Warden refered to as a "hairy breasted Amazon":
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD HAND OFF THIS ISSUE FOR THE MEN TO SETTLE.The Star decided that Warden isn't worth suing over this matter. Oh, but don't think of Warden as a sexist. I mean, one of the other leaders in his group is a woman, Laine Lawless. Lawless, if you remember, is the one who always likes to claim that the Guardians' protests are against the Mexican government, but not against migrants or Hispanics in general. So, why, Ms. Lawless, are you posting to hate group bulletin boards suggesting that people steal money from and beat up illegal aliens? Why do you suggest that people do what they can to keep Spanish-speaking immigrant children (no matter what their legal status) out of school? What do you mean by talking about sabotaging "food and entertainment"? And, if this isn't about race, why are you posting on neo-Nazi bulletin boards? By the way, Chris Simcox and company haven't yet disavowed these chowderheads. The funny part is there actually are a significant number of Hispanics in this country that want to limit immigration, but its exactly these sort of extremist nut-jobs that keep them from being outspoken. The fact that so many Republican politicians and commentators are more than happy to line up with these racist nitwits only gives ammunition to people who think that the Republican party and the anti-immigrant movement are uniformly anti-Hispanic. To paraphrase an addage from a few decades ago: they aren't for the racists, but the racists are all for them.|W|P|114605951741841064|W|P|Those Border Guardians: Just Concerned Citizens, Really|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Craig|W|P|Ch. 15 in Phoenix is airing radio ads touting a report on The Minutemen and what they do with the donations that they have collected. I don't remember all of the spot, but they did use the phrase "...taking advantage of your patriotism..."I generally don't watch the local TV news here (any industry that can foist JD Hayworth on us can't be any good, lol) and NEVER expect hard-hitting investigative journalism out of any major media outlet in Metro Phoenix, but if I'm home, I'll watch this.
Petition Circulators needed NOW! Reply to: job-153426042@craigslist.org Date: 2006-04-21, 9:07PM you must be registered to vote to apply. We need petition circulators for a U.S. Congressional candidate for the 7th District. Pay is per signature and job needs to be completed by 5/15. we only need 500 signatures so it will be quick cash for a motivated person! collect signatures from registered voters in Avondale, Tucson, Maricopa, Yuma, Parker. call to inquire at 623-670-2778 Original URL: http://tucson.craigslist.org/npo/153426042.htmlLet's see the signature requirements for CD 7: DEMOCRATIC: 641 REPUBLICAN: 338 LIBERTARIAN: 12 Um...hmm...so, he needs about 500...that must mean this is a Republican candidate, or a really ambitious Libertarian...probably not Joe Sweeney. Judging from Sweeney's website, he probably doesn't know how to post on Craigslist. Plus, he always seems to make the ballot on his own. (By the way, the last person to challenge his petitions was Jim Toeves way back in 1992. Suprise, his signatures were bad.)
That leaves one person, former Avondale Mayor and Wildcat of Convienience Ron Drake.
What Ron, you are only starting NOW? What has that legion of volunteers been doing for the last three months?
Sheesh.|W|P|114597390121602576|W|P|If You Don't Want Me to Give You Grief, Don't Post About Your Campaign Problems|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, it's the Republican way of doing things. Ignore the problem until it reaches crisis level, then scramble. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, ignore a problem until it affects their grip on power then scramble is the Republican way of doing things. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually since Janet has been patiently telling the State Lege to send her decent bills she can sign into law, I do not think SHE is the problem with the illegal (and responsiblity of the FEDERAL government) immigration problem.Maybe you could ask JD, John Kyl and McCain, Kolbe, Flake, et al about why it is only THIS year they bothered to do anything about the issue? After all, that is one of the reasons we send them to the US Congress is it not?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you never know Bored...he could be a medium! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you never know Bored...he could be a medium! Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Eli Blake|W|P|You might as well ask Kyl.He was a do-nothing Senator for about ten years until he realized he might have a race this time, then he began sponsoring legislation.
The guy without the name badge is Todd Sommers, a legislative assistant to Rep. J. D. Hayworth.
Now, check out who is hanging out at the back of the crowd at Harry Mitchell's announcement, looking very uncomfortable. Apparently, Sommers was also spotted one day (around 11:00, dead center during federally funded office hours) at Tempe City Hall doing research on Mitchell's tenure as Mayor of Tempe.
You know, most campaigns can pay for people to do this sort of opposition research so they don't need to break the rules and send folks on federal salaries to do it. I thought Hayworth raised somewhere north of $800,000, you'd think he'd have enough to pay someone to do this. Maybe he's anticipating spending all that money on something else, like attorneys.|W|P|114588733201300602|W|P|I Know, I Know, He's Just a "Private Citizen" on His "Day Off."|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|I wonder if there is a way to audit Hayworth's office payroll account and verify that he was on the clock when this picture was taken?As far as Congressional staffers not being political, I suspect that is only our staffers. Remember 2000, when the RNC rounded up a bunch of paid political staffers and sent them down to Florida so they could riot outside the door of the people doing the recounts?
Michael Bryan|W|P|The body language is a dead give-away, too. He obviously feels defensive because he knows he's doing something wrong and will be in the shit if caught at. And guess what? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, that was vetoed on the 17th.Anyway, unless you plan on getting up with us women forced to have babies we do not want for the 3 AM feeding, could you kindly stay out of our uteruses? Thank you.
As for this guy, I knew the one you told me was part of the opposition was not Mister T! That guy later filled out a volunteer form. :p
Craig|W|P|Maybe next time, he'll remember the fake '70s porn star moustache. LOLSeriously, while even I consider this particular incident to be 'slap-on-the-wrist' stuff (and I'm pretty partisan), if the Hayworth campaign is already playing fast and loose with basic rules, what's the rest of the campaign season going to be like?
Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:There is no problem with believing that abortion is bad. And Democrats have been quietly implementing a plan to reduce the need for it for over a decade, involving sex ed, birth control and family planning. And it's worked-- even Right to Life concedes that the number of abortions is down by anywhere from a quarter to a third (statistics are hard to come by) since it reached a peak in the early 1990's. The problem is that some people believe that the only way to oppose something you don't like is to make it illegal.
I don't agree with that point of view. It's narrowly focused and requires criminalizing something that only a minority even believe should be a crime at all.
Now, anti-abortionists will cite competing polls saying that people believe abortion is immoral, or bad or whatever.
However, that does not equate with criminal.
For example, I believe that smoking tobacco is bad. It kills tens of thousands of people every year (including hundreds, maybe even thousands of non-smokers) and costs this country billions in hospital bills, lost productivity and money that is spent on useless tobacco products that are simply burned up and thrown away. It also causes millions of dollars every year in damages from fires that wouldn't start if nobody smoked. And for this reason, I fully support spending money on efforts to prevent kids and others from starting, enforcing laws against giving cigarettes to minors, and helping people quit.
But I don't support banning nicotine, and I don't support banning abortion for the same reason. It's not the purpose of Government to interfere in people's personal decisions, and there are a lot of ways to oppose something without making it a crime.
As far as adoption, if pro-life people spent a tenth of the effort on promoting adoption and finding good homes for the many older kids who are stuck in the foster system right now, as they do on trying to criminalize abortion, then I suspect that on top of all the other problems that were solved, we would see quite a few less abortions.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am sorry, I misread the number and looked up the wrong bill. The bill also makes an exception for someone performing an abortion. This bill is designed and intended to charge someone who has harmed an in utero fetus with an additional crime. This generally happens when a woman has an abusive relationship. And these are generally called Laci Laws since they are the result of the dual murder conviction of Scott Peterson who murdered his wife and unborn child.However, until *you* have had to carry a fetus that you do NOT want to carry, you cannot tell me or any other woman "oh just put it up for adoption." If a woman does not want her pregnancy, then she is going to do anything to get rid of it up to and including killing herself.
And you do want to be in my uterus because you want to tell me what I can and cannot have in it.
leathej1|W|P|Any time you endeavor to reduce an argument to only two choices, you are generally on the wrong track. Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:here are national numbers from Right to Life, certainly not skewed in favor of Democrats.
It shows quite conclusively a decline in abortion since 1990.
If that trend has leveled off or reversed, then I would stop and ask what has changed since the years when we were having so much success? Answer: the main change to the sex ed curriculum has been the introduction of 'abstinence only' education. Look at the math of it. If you have 90% of students in a school abstinent (which would be an amazing 'success'), but you don't teach the rest of them about safe sex, then 10% of the students are engaging in risky sex and could result in unwanted pregnancies. On the other hand if you taught traditional sex ed (which still teaches that abstinence is the only failsafe way) and you have 50% of the students sexually active but using condoms which are 98% effective, then only (.50)(.02) = 1% are exposed to the same risks as 10% are exposed to under the 'abstinence only' scenario. Hence about ten times as many unwanted pregnancies.
Now, true the numbers here are only an example, and may or may not be in the neighborhood of the actual numbers, but the point is made: abortions declined during the hey day of traditional sex ed/condom distribution etc. but if that trend is now reversing itself then I would suggest that it is almost certainly due to 'abstinence only' education programs since that is really the only thing that has changed much in terms of the sex education over the past several years.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I have no idea why Harry voted against it. Probably because he was concerned it was the first step in banning a woman's right to choose her family size. I know that is the first thing I thought about when I read it. Once you start saying that a fetus is a person under the law, then you can start forcing women to become nothing more then vessals for the fetus they carry. And then you get into forcing women into prisons to make sure they do not self abort. Or do you not care if they do that and risk putting their lives in danger? If you want to know so much about Harry's reasons, go to a campaign event and ask him, send him an email, or contact the campaign staff regarding it. And do the same for the other people you mentioned. I can give you MY opinion regarding abortion and that is all.
As for "if you want to not have kids, do not get pregnant," yeah that is why I support comprehensive sex ed, fuller access to contraception (including making ALL health insurance providers pay for the Pill) and making Plan B OTC.
However NOTHING in life is perfect and if they have a contraception that fails, then I want any woman who has no interest in becoming a mother at this or any time during her reproductive years to have access to an abortion if that is what she wants. Not my decision and I stand behind hers since again *I* do not have to have the baby, I do not have to deal with the consequences while *she* does.
Also you might want to read up on why a woman decides on an abortion rather then just saying why YOU think we women should not get them.
You will be surprised.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and here, a few reasons a woman might also chose an abortion. Jane Arizona|W|P|Harry doesn’t have all those pictures of little children surrounding him to hide the fact that he is pro-abortionI know. Only Republicans care about little children. That's why they vote against paying to send drugs to Africa to help little children live.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|And vote to slash Head Start funds, and WIC, and destroyed welfare, cut subsidies for section eight...yes Republicans LOVE the little children.
Jane Arizona|W|P|Don't forget the vote to cut child-support enforcement, which was just $59 million worth of wasteful discretionary spending. Praise the Lord! Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, and let's not forget how Arizona is still bringing up the rear in paying teachers. Yeah, they love kids all right.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|He always does that Erik. I just was getting tired of someone demanding to tell me what to have in my uterus. Zelph|W|P|More of DHo's antics can be found here.Horowitz shamelessly claims before a Penn State audience that the President of Penn State said that "the College Republicans are offensive" when, in fact, what he had said was that plans the College Republicans had made to hold a "CATCH AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DAY" were offensive. Unbelievable!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The Republicans say they do not hate Latinos then pull this stunt with John Allen being um...less then diplomatic in his wording. So exactly how is she wrong?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|can it not be something good? like you know Jim saves fifty frozen embryos from a burning building while also solving: In what class of 4-dimensional spacetimes does there exist a real, non-constant scalar field φ with the following properties:It obeys the wave equation: ◻φ=0
Its gradient is everywhere null: ∇φ.∇φ=0
which I admit I stole from David Deutsch's website but I know he would love the answer to.
Tedski|W|P|Geez...I hate calculating gradients...what a pain in the behind. Eli Blake|W|P|tedski:I'm with you there.
Some years ago, I was in a Ph.D. math program and had a teaching assistantship to help pay my way through. I loved teaching algebra to freshmen, but didn't like a lot of the hardcore math at all. Then I realized that if I did a bunch of math/physics research, published several papers, presented them, and then wrote a thesis on it and got my Ph.D., my reward would be that I could get hired to 'teach' at a university, where I would mainly be expected to-- do research, publish, and present papers. Teaching would be secondary.
So realizing this, I dropped out of the Ph.D. program, took a job teaching freshmen algebra at a community college, and have never been happier than I am now, still doing it more than twenty years after I first stepped into a classroom. And calculating gradients? Only when I'm teaching Calc III.
Eli Blake|W|P|I hope, by the way, that you emailed your post to the editor of the paper down there, so they can realize how truly stupid they look.At least our paper up here only has one section, and comes out twice a week, so there is only so much they can get wrong.
My brother pointed this one out to me last night.
It seems that George Bush has learned some lessons from proto-Republican Abraham Lincoln.
When the war isn't going well, make sure to fire McClellan.
Is this a subtle acknowledgement that there is a civil war going on?|W|P|114554951748664798|W|P|He's Already Sort of Suspended Habeas Corpus, Next Up: He'll Finally Emancipate the Slaves|W|P|prezelski@aol.com knighterrant|W|P|Peggy Noonan writing about Bush: "Just because they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln."
If Kyl is going to call Pederson "desperate" for doing things like running ads or, I dunno, phone banking, doing interviews or doing anything else that we self-appointed political experts usually call "campaigning," he might as well go all the way and take a page from Czech Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek, who is involved in a tough re-election fight.
Paroubek, well...I'll let you read it yourself. By the way, does he look a bit like Mayor Quimby?|W|P|114545470130363083|W|P|Suh, I Demand Satisfaction|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|actually he looks a teeny bit like you Ted. Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, it would certainly simplify elections here. And it was good enough for Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.The bad news is that if we chose our leaders that way, Dick Cheney would have to be considered the favorite, based on his recent experience.
On last night's Arizona Illustrated, Republican Pooh-Bah John Munger spoke about the candidacy of Jim Pederson. When Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Donna Branch-Gilby brought up that Pederson is rich, but a self-made rich man, Munger said "I have a problem with that..." Munger proceded to complain about wealthy people running for the United States Senate.
Wow. You would almost think that Munger would be for public financing to prevent such a thing from happening, but no, he later trashed the state's Clean Elections system as a failure, even though many of his Republican friends don't seem to have a problem running under it.
Munger also complained that Pederson's announced donation of $2,000,000 to his own campaign is forcing Jon Kyl to spend all of this extra money. Once again, Republicans are whining that a Democrat is campaigning. ¡Pobrecitos!
When Branch-Gilby said that this is still dwarfed by Kyl's $7,300,000 warchest, Munger had an interesting riposte. Kyl's money can only come in $4,000 donations, you know, from regular working folks. He said this as if there are thousands sweat drenched working mothers writing $3000 and $4000 checks to Kyl in their breaks between their waitressing and telemarketing jobs.
The defense that Kyl is being "forced" to raise this money is even more silly, since he raised nearly $3,000,000 in the 2000 cycle when he had no major party opponent. Did his supporters complain then that the Green Party candidate "forced" him to raise and spend all that money?
Munger's defense of Kyl seemed to imply that he is some normal guy that happens to be in the senate. So much better a better guy than some plutocrat like Pederson, I guess. Well, what was Kyl before a Senator? He was a congressman. Before he was a congressman? A lobbyist. Oh yeah, and his father was a congressman too. Yes, Jon Kyl, much more of a regular guy than Jim Pederson.
PS - Munger is one of many state Republicans touting the fact that Time magazine picked John McCain and Jon Kyl as two of our country's ten best senators. So, I suppose that they will be slathering praise on Edward Kennedy, who made the list as well.
PPS - I wanted to point out that Munger himself practices real estate law, among other things, which means he has done pretty well for himself in the same industry that Pederson is in. A quick perusal of his firm's website shows that they also handle "immigration law:"
We can help your company compete in the global marketplace by assisting you in hiring foreign individuals with needed skills including professionals, technicians, management, executive personnel, or other accomplished individuals. We can also help the corporate client establish or expand operations in the United States by assisting in the transfer of managers, executives or specialists from affiliated entities abroad to the United States. The Firm can help your company develop compliance plans and conduct private audits to prevent fines for failure to maintain certain immigration and labor-related paperwork. Munger Chadwick can help your company bring world class athletes, entertainers and entertainment groups, or cultural exchange groups to the U.S. for international festivals, meets, performances, etc.Wow, Munger Chadwick will help you "prevent fines" for breaking labor and immigration laws. Nice. Also, they will help you find those foreign workers that you can pay 25% less than an American worker. Interestingly, immigration, possibly the biggest issue going for his party right now, was undiscussed in the interview.|W|P|114537012348156435|W|P|John Munger: Working Class Hero|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Jane Arizona|W|P|You're my hero. Art Jacobson|W|P|Ted...A wonderful post.Tap... tap... tap, nails in the Munger coffin.
Art
Eli Blake|W|P|A Republican teeing off on 'rich people.'How quaint.
Oh, and he also conveniently forgot to mention that Kyl raised about $1.4 million in one night, when the President (or was it the Veep-- they've both been campaining for Kyl) came by. Pederson has to raise what he can without the benefit of an incumbent administration that can raise large sums of money in a night, while we pay the tab for their travel.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|What would it take for you to say nice things about Ted Bored?And Ted, you know as well as I do that Dems are only supposed to stand there and be defeated. At least that is what the GOP believes.
Eli Blake|W|P|I like the muppet for Kyl.It really fits him well, especially since for ten years Kyl pretty much did nothing much in the Senate. It was only last year when he realized he was due for re-election that he even bothered to do anything noteworthy.
Tedski|W|P|Elizabeth-I wouldn't expect Bored to say nice things about me, I did, after all ruin his childhood. The man is traumatized.
Years ago, I read a book called The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete and Unexpurgated Text, edited by a fellow named Harold Holzer. Holzer used Democratic transcripts of Abraham Lincoln's speeches, and Republican transcripts of Stephen Douglas's speeches, believing that a candidate's opponents would give a "warts and all" version of the speeches.
One thing that struck me was the way in which Lincoln would change his tune regarding the question of slavery depending on what town he was in. In Illinois's northern towns, his rhetoric would be more abolitionist, but in "Little Egypt," he sounded almost like a white supremacist . He could get away with that in those days with communications the way they were back then.
We snide liberals love to point out that today's Republican party embraces Lincoln, but doesn't seem to have learned much from him. It seems that they have learned much from his debating strategy, however.
The Republican pary is running ads claiming that Democratic congressmen attempted to brand illegal immigrants felons. You are asking two questions. One is: how the heck can they claim that? I won't try to address the rather tortured logic because I think others have done that better than me.
Your second question is: how the heck can they get away with that when Republicans like Randy Graf, Don Goldwater and Rep. J. D. Hayworth are trashing Democrats for not voting for strong immigration measures?
Well, it's simple: they are running the ads on Spanish language radio. I don't imagine that Graf's base is listening to Radio Tejano.
I've got a suggestion for the Republicans: if this is your message, you should be proud to run these ads in English. Heck, why stop there? Run them on country stations...'specially in Sierra Vista.
The Democratic party is taking action on this and raising ads to counter the message. If you want to help, check out Wactivist for more information.|W|P|114524088749047921|W|P|Republicans Are For Immigration Restrictions Depending on What Radio Station You Like|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|The best counter would be to just publish the verbatim translation of that ad and of a Hayworth speech in the paper right next to each other.Light is the best antidote for lack of illumination.
You know, it's a new f***ing outrage every day. After a year, that's 365 f***ing outrages.By the way, Al was totally unengaged with politics until Bush came along.|W|P|114506525900107146|W|P|Quote of the Week, No, Decade|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Craig|W|P|" Al was totally unengaged with politics until Bush came along."That seems to be true of a lot of people.
I suppose that means that, for all his myriad faults, even W can accomplish some good. Even if it is by accident.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was totally unengaged until Howard Dean. Todd|W|P|I was totally unengaged until the day after Election Day 2004. But, better late than never. leathej1|W|P|Campaign trail 2000, when the then future president opened his mouth for the first time.The Supreme Court has decided that you have a Constitutional right to burn an American flag, but don't try burning a Mexican one.Yeah, the Border Guardians are being opressed for burning a flag, while all of those hippie communists are allowed to get away with burning American flags, and probably are paid to do it by the NEA. Those Tucson police are well known for being radical lefties who look for any chance to punish true patriots. Give me a break. This ignores the actual reasons for the arrest. Roy Warden, the flag burner, is being charged with three things: reckless burning, criminal damage and assault. Reckless burning is a charge that has been brought up against flag burners in the past, and federal courts have said that such prosecutions are legal because they apply if you are burning a Mexican flag, American flag, or a stack of Danielle Steele novels. I suppose Warden's supporters will still argue that prosecuting him for this is a violation of his rights, but that doesn't do anything about the other charges, one for the damage he caused to the shuffleboard courts and the other for assaulting a cameraman. I suppose next we'll hear that his striking the cameraman was because he felt opressed by liberal media bias. Given that Warden and his group were trespassing (rally organizers had a permit to use the park, the Guardians didn't), and that they were attempting to incite a riot, he was lucky to only get charged with these crimes. (Something I find interesting the various statements from immigration opponents about this incident is the implication that somehow American flags have been burned at protests in Tucson and Phoenix. Anyone heard that this has actually happened? Really? I didn't think so.) One of the most extreme examples of the new conservative "we-are-so-big-and-tough-but-we-will-cry-when-the-big-bad-liberals-do-something" school of rhetoric is Bill O'Reilly. He talks like some swaggering dockworker, but then claims that if some clerk at a Wal-Mart somewhere doesn't say "Merry Chistmas," he is being hurt deeply. Rep. Jonathan Paton, who has told colleagues that he isn't doing all of this for publicity, appeared on yesterday's O'Reilly Factor with Moon-yee Fung, president of Tucson High's Teenage Republican Club. Once again, they rehashed the cost of the busses during the student walkouts (requested, as it turns out, by the police) and Dolores Huerta's "Republicans Hate Latinos" statement. Apparently, Fung was so offended by this that she tried to leave, and wasn't allowed to. Unlike O'Rielly, I won't pretend to know the reasons for this. Ironically, Fung herself admits to voluntarilly attending the event, and supports some sort of legalization process for undocumented workers. Shh...don't be too loud about that part, or these new friends you just got will drop you and they can be a heck of a lot nastier than Dolores Huerta can be. Fung's supporters are claiming that she wanted so desperately to go to her own state legislative delegation about this incident, but they were Democrats and she was scared to talk to them. Yeah, that Victor Soltero is a scary, scary man. I don't want to pick on Fung because I became politically active around the same age she is now. Heck, if she thinks it is hard to organize Republicans at Tucson High, try to organize a Democratic club at St. Gregory, back in the days when they didn't give so many scholarships. My trouble here is with people on the right who poke around until they find a "victim" of yet another supposed lefty plot. It is ridiculous. What I would suggest to Fung is that she and her club engage in the discussion and show that there are well-intentioned Republicans like her that want sensible immigration reform. Given that the day before Fung appeared on the show, O'Rielly claimed that a Cleveland newspaper was "pro-criminal" because there were so many minorities there, that may be the wrong forum to give that message. Paton also tried to make a slap at Rep. Raul Grijalva for appearing on the campus. Grijalva did not even make a formal speech, but discussed issues with students. What's that? A congressman meeting with high school students? How dare he! You have kids meet with their community's leaders, they may grow up to be responsible members of society, they may even vote. We can't have this. (Hands up all of you who think that Republican hackles would be raised if Sen. Jon Kyl spoke on a high school campus somewhere.) As expected, O'Rielly merely used Paton and Fung as an excuse to whine that those darned public schools are indoctrinating our good American youth into being unabashed lefties. Given that Huerta was invited by the students, it doesn't sound like much indoctrination is necessary. O'Rielly cares so much about this issue by the way, that he claimed not to know who Dolores Huerta is, even though every story about this incident would have told him exactly who she is. By the way, Paton has been invited by Tucson High to speak, you know "fair and balanced" like, and he has refused. NB - Paton and Fung were not in O'Rielly's studio, of course, but were interviewed remotely. They were in the studios of KUAT, the local public television station located on the University of Arizona campus. I'll let you tally up the ironies.|W|P|114502589079851411|W|P|Whine Merchants|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
I like Rep. Jonathan Paton, I've seen him at Hotel Congress a couple of times, and seems to be a decent guy. What frustrates me about him is that he believes that he needs to pander to the right wing of his party, a right wing that doesn't like him too much and won't no matter what he does.
His latest act is attacking the Tucson Unified School District. He is angry over a speech given at Tucson High School by United Farm Workers leader Dolores Huerta. He is angry over statements supportive of Hugo Chavez and, most infamously, for saying "Republicans hate Latinos." Okay, I love Dolores Huerta, but the latter statement was probably inappropriate. However, it is instructive to note that Huerta was invited by a student organization. If local Republican leaders don't like the tone of the speech, a conservative student group can invite someone else to talk. I can't remember what that is called, it's a Greek word, oh yeah, democracy.
(They can invite Randy Graf or Joe Sweeney and confirm that some Republicans, in fact, do hate Hispanics)
Paton has sent a letter to the district demanding answers on both that and the amount of money spent on busses for Monday's rally. I can see that, if there are constituents who want answers. However, Paton is now threatening the district with subpoenas and "invited" Superintendent Roger Pfeuffer to "attend" a legislative hearing. He's got to know that his colleagues will just use this as an excuse to berate Pfeuffer in public (anyone who has seen the way they treat witnesses would know what I mean), and I don't see what this can result in except yet another reason for the legislature to go after public school funding.
Yesterday, Paton also announced that he is again going after TUSD, again for a speech made at Tucson High School, this time by Rep. Raúl Grijalva this past Tuesday. You may remember at the begining of the month Grijalva, along with many local educational and civic leaders including Republican Mayor Bob Walkup, put out a call asking that students not participate in walk-outs and promised other opporitunities to discuss issues. In an open letter to the community, Grijalva and 25 others said:
To this point, only some student leaders have had the opportunity to participate in discussions about possible events to be held this week and in the future. We are committed to giving all students the opportunity to voice their opinions in a safe environment. Each school will provide opportunities from a menu that includes, but is not limited to, class discussions, forums, debates, panels, and letter or petition writing.So, Grijalva was doing what he and many local leaders wanted, giving students a chance to express themselves without leaving class. Apparently, this wasn't even a full blown speech, but mostly a question and answer session. It is ridiculous to think that a congressman can't talk to a group of high school students in his own district. Neither Huerta or Grijalva is Paton's political cup of tea. This goes without saying. But it is overkill to declare war on the school district over this matter.|W|P|114493736394315870|W|P|Maybe They Can Subpoena the Spirit Club For Making Students Sit Through Another Stupid Pep Rally|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|What is wrong with Pep Rallies?Why do you hate America? ;P
Michael|W|P|The bullies in the legislature don't care who they're beating up. They've attacked young people during committee hearings before and there's no doubt they'd do it again. You can't challenge their deeply-held convictions. They're attempting to intimidate the democracy out of the process of creating public policy. And in Arizona, for the most part, they've been successful.
The "social conservative" side seems to have lined up with Len Munsil, who yesterday told the Arizona Capitol Times that he would like to see the rhetoric on immigration toned down, he even seemed to appreciate the tone of the massive demonstration that occurred on the streets of Phoenix. Comments on the front page of his website reflect this too. This is a far cry from statements from immigration foes like Pearce and Ron Gould.
Goldwater, on the other hand, has courted groups like the Minutemen (even doing "shifts" with them, a great way to spend campaign time) and has made radical calls for restricting immigration and punishing those who stay illegally. He has even on a number of occasions called for drafting undocumented aliens into service cleaning up trash and building a border wall. Anyone remember when Republicans were excited about the 14th Ammendment?
Unlike Munsil's page, the front of Goldwater's web page makes little mention of the social issues that excite "traditional values" voters.
A poll came out this morning (pointed out by, you guessed it, Boredinaz) that gave Goldwater a 39-10 lead over Munsil, with Jan Smith-Florez coming in fourth behind some guy named Mike Harris. Some are saying that this means that Goldwater is the favorite (were these the same people reserving tickets to a Mary Peters inaugural a couple of months ago?), but I wonder why with his phenominal name ID, he isn't doing better. Munsil has a better grass roots network established, and he seems to have support of a lot of important folks within the party. I have no doubt that Goldwater's message is popular in the Republican base, but how many are picking him right now for that message, and how many because of the familiar name? I think it's too early too look at these polls, considering that other than collecting signatures and five dollar contributions, neither one has had the time to really make a connection with voters.
If I were a cynical bastard, I would say this comes down to whether or not far right Republican primary voters hate gays or Mexicans more. What you have here is a serious argument between two issues important on the right wing of the party, and we will see which one Republican primary voters think is more important.|W|P|114488832131023890|W|P|This Is Like When I Watch New York vs. DC United: I'm Only Cheering for Injuries and Red Cards|W|P|prezelski@aol.com GOPinsider|W|P|Munsil seems to be setting his strategy more for the general election, and assuming his social conservative base can carry him through the primary. Goldwater only option is to run the immigration play, because pretty soon the Munsil people will start reminding everyone that Don was pro-choice and more of a libertarian on social issues, before deciding to run for Governor.
Rex Scott|W|P|My hunch is that Arpaio is just waiting in the wings for the time when he feels it is right for him to jump into the GOP race. He is an ideological moderate with a law and order background...which was the same appealing profile put forth by former Attorny General Napolitano in 2002. A late start wouldn't hurt him because he already has high name ID, especially in the county that holds the greatest number of voters in the state.
Plus, he is passionately in love with himself and will claim the label of savior of his party. Munsil doesn't have the right resume, even if he is a smooth talker. He will scare off GOP moderates who will flock to Janet. The others are lightweights, even if they have famous last names to flout.
Very soon, the GOP is going to realize that Arpaio is their best shot at knocking off janet and bolstering Kyl. He can't continue to be the Mario Cuomo of Arizona politics and expect to be taken seriously as statewide political timber.
This year is the year he needs to shut his voluminous piehole, take off his hat and chuck it in the ring. I hope he DOESN'T, because I think he would give Janet (who I fervently support) a serious run for her money, but he should do it if he wants to known for more than tent cities and pink jammies on inmates.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Arpaio was the guy who accused one of his opponents of raping his own mother right?Yeah he is the savior of the GOP. *rolls eyes*
Craig|W|P|Have to disagree with you Rex - Arpaio's profile is a *little* different than Napolitano's.
He's a corrupt, megalomaniacal blowhard with an affinity for TV cameras and dead prisoners.
Much as even Republicans despise her, Governor Napolitano really is "an ideological moderate with a law and order background."
Even if he won the Repub nomination, he would face a major uphill battle in the general election.
And given that he pissed off a lot of Repubs when he actually appeared in a Napolitano TV spot, getting the nomination would be far from a sure thing.
Tony GOPrano|W|P|Goldwater can't even get his seed money. The only supporters he has are the Pachyderm Coalition, the far right Libertarians of the Republican Party. Munsil will be fully funded which makes the difference in any Primary....fergitaboutit!
Rep. Russell Pearce announced his endorsement of Don Goldwater yesterday.|W|P|114485343186466650|W|P|In Case You Needed Another Reason Not to Vote For Don Goldwater|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Oberon|W|P|........you had me at rum.
Jon Kyl's campaign is criticizing Jim Pederson's campaign as desperate. Yes, Pederson is a desperate man who will turn over any rock, stoop to any low, leave no moral code unbroken to run for the United States Senate. His latest political attrocity is just too hideous to name. Hide the children, please.
Pederson is...
Pederson is...
...running ads.
Yes, I know. This is a horrible thing that Pederson is doing. It makes me so ashamed to be one of his supporters. Please, please, Jim, end the horror before you have sulllied our unspolied politics in Arizona.
I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me there. Kyl's campaign is criticizing Pederson for, uh, campaigning. I know, Pederson is just supposed to do his job and be merely a name on the ballot and allow Kyl to be reelected with little opposition. That sort of thing works so well in Belarus, after all.
What seems desperate to me is Kyl's spokesman going after Pederson merely for running ads.
Like Janet Napolitano, Kyl has a solid re-elect number right now. Unlike Napolitano, Kyl has dangerously low approval ratings. This indicates that he could be beaten if people know who his opponent is. The last thing they want is for anyone to know that someone is running against their guy.
The ads are standard "let's introduce you to the candidate" fare. No attacks, and few issues. They remind me of, well, the ads that Jon Kyl himself ran before the primary in 1994. Those were on fairly early too. Interestingly, you could watch those ads and never know that Kyl had served a day in congress (or that his pre-congressional career was as a lobbyist). You'd just think he was some guy who's radiator blew on I-10 one day.
Maybe Kyl's people just think he is just so wonderful and so deserving that no one should run against him. That is a heck of an attitude for his campaign to have in a democracy.|W|P|114485041475293520|W|P|Jon Kyl: Desperate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|The hair, the face, that phony wide smile...when I first saw him all those many years ago, Guy Smiley is who I thought of. GOPinsider|W|P|They are scared. Scared that people will realize that they have an option beyond reelecting party-line Kyl who just seems to follow his marching orders from an extremely unpopular White House. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No event is boring with Tom-AZ around... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you know that Gabby can solve all the world's problems...or if she does not then she can be blamed for them.
Depending on whose calendar you look at, either today is St. Stanislaus day, or we should wait until May 8th. The day is supposed to be the anniversary of Stanislaus's martyrdom in 1079. Not only can people not agree on the day, but there is a dispute about whether he qualifies as a martyr.
The man born Stanisław Szczepanowski is one of the patron saints of Poland. He served as bishop of Kraków at a time when the Polish nation was still being established. He spoke out against immorality among the people, but was also willing to point out immorality among their leaders as well. This made him run afoul of the king, Bolesław II the Bold. The king and he struggled against each other for years. Legend has it that at one point the king brought Stanisław into court over a land dispute, Stanisław resurected a long dead witness just to testify on his behalf. This was not a man who should be messed with.
The final straw came when the king mistreated the wives of soldiers who were on a protracted war against Ruthenia. The king had also kidnapped the wife of a nobleman for his own purient reasons. Stanisław criticized him for both of these, participated in a plot to depose the king, and excommunicated him. In retaliation, Bolesław branded Stanisław a traitor, which in those days meant execution.
Bolesław sent soldiers into a church to execute Stanisław while he was celebrating mass (thus drawing some historical comparisons to St. Thomas Becket). The soldiers refused to do it, so Bolesław did it himself and had the body dismembered.
Since he was killed for what can be called a political dispute and not for his faith, some say that he doesn't qualify as a martyr. However, he was killed for speaking the truth to and challenging those in power. To him, that was a responsiblity that his faith called him to.
Interestingly, Bolesław abdicated and became a penitent at a monastery in Hungary. Benedictine monks in Eastern Europe later venerated him as Blessed Bolesław, King and Penitent. Forgiveness is always possible.|W|P|114477485132690462|W|P|St. Stanislaus|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|That was interesting Ted. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This is why I never click on links from Ted's blog.
Most of you saw J. D. Hayworth on Meet The Press with Tim Russert (Whatever happened to that nice Lawrence Spivak, why isn't he on anymore?) What many of you may not have noticed was a, well, not a lie, not a preverication, maybe just certain facts left out.
Hayworth was hoping only to talk about how he is going to stop all of those illegals from hopping our fences and impregnating our nubile young women or something like that. When Russert (who has developed a pair as of late) asked him about the Abramoff contributions:
You know, I’m so glad you raised that, because I took the step of writing the tribes that support me. We should point out, when I was elected to Congress, I have more American Indians in my district, nearly one out of every four of my constituents was American Indian, I’m part of a Native American caucus, the co-chair. The real story would have been if the tribes were not supporting me. But you know what I did? I wrote the tribes who enlisted Abramoff and his associates as lobbyists, I said, “Do you want your campaign contributions back?” And they said, “No.” They said, “You have consistently stood up for the sovereign rights of Native peoples, and we respect that, whoever our advocate is in Washington.”You know, if you believe that he was glad that Russert raised the question, you may just believe the rest of his answer. Yes, when Hayworth was elected, his district was heavily Native American. It included the Navajo, Hopi and White Mountain Apache, three of the largest native nations in the country. However, these have since been razored out of the district, and he now represents the much smaller Ft. McDowell and Salt River Pima nations. The native population of his district is still significant, but it is deceptive to imply that he represents an overwelmingly Native American district. The other thing that is deceptive: the contributions in question did not come from tribes in his district, or even in Arizona. His TEAM PAC, of which Abramoff was an early and significant supporter, was funded by Jack Abramoff connected tribes. As I have written here before, the PAC has only one employee, Hayworth's wife, Mary. Also, the assertion that he's had friendly conversations with the tribes about the money and they don't want it back is incorrect. At least one tribe in Texas has said that they would like their money back. Another thing that he said that I found interesting:
As I write in my book, let’s take a look back to 2004. Proposition 200 on the ballot in Arizona, to deprive illegals of social benefits, and it passed overwhelmingly. And as the Arizona Daily Star reported, it passed with a majority of Hispanic votes as well. The fact is, Hispanics voted in greater numbers for Proposition 200 than they did for President Bush, who received 43 percent of the Hispanic vote in Arizona.I don't know about the stats on Hispanic support of Proposition 200 that he quotes, but I do know of one Anglo that came out publically against it: him, along with the rest of the congressional delegation. When will someone in the press ask him why he's flip-flopped on this?|W|P|114473397992438233|W|P|Hayworth on Russert|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
GOPinsider|W|P|Plus J.D. claimed that all the money his wife had received was from "over a decade" when in reality, TEAM PAC has only been in existence for 7-years. And the fact remains, that Mary's salary has been almost half as much as the actual funds that the PAC has distributed to actual candidates. The fact that it's not a larger amount of money over that time period doesn't make it ethical (sure Tom DeLay's wife took a lot more), it just means that J.D. isn't nearly as much of a D.C. player as he would like to be - and not as good at fundraising as he probably wishes he were.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I dare you to do it Ted at the next town hall meeting he has. And I bet it will not be in Tempe, when I was downtown today I picked up my precinct numbers. Tempe really does not like JD that much.
We're not picking on Mexicans specifically, but we're blaming their government and their citizens who are here illegally in the U.S.We're not picking on Mexicans, but we are burning a Mexican flag. Oh, okay then. Even their own website says that the burning of the Mexican flag was to protest "Mexican disrespect of American Sovreignty." So, they aren't protesting against Mexicans specifically, but they are specifically protesting against Mexicans. Their website also calls humanitarian aid workers "treasonous" (thereby considering it a capitol offense to give someone water), decries protestors for carrying American flags (they are anti-patriots when they don't, and apparently they are desecrating the flag when they do), labels people who don't hold their racist views traitors, and cheers on the bizarre prosecution of Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz. It would be easier to admire the stones of these people if they were burning the Mexican flag in front of the consulate if the consulate wasn't closed at the time. Wow, that's bravery. Heck, with that level of courage, even the Minutemen could make fun of you guys. I heard a rumor that the Minutemen were going to be at today's rally. Is it really going to be the Minutemen, or just these schlubs? I ask because I had an idea for a sign. It comes from something I posted on Enviro Hanky. I was thinking of buying a beer for anyone that makes a sign that says this:
Do Your Wives Call You Minutemen Too?Ad hominem attacks can be fun.|W|P|114467791741582140|W|P|What a Bunch of Jerks|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Jane Arizona|W|P|But Tedski, we live in a state where nobody is racist and nobody is against the Mexicans. They're merely concerned with the law (which they could've been concerned with ten years ago, except perhaps they were going through an Anarchist phase. Ah, youth.) GOPinsider|W|P|Let's hope if they try and burn any flags today, they are arrested for trying to incite a riot. GOPinsider|W|P|Mr. T -I thought that's what I said?
Perhaps I should have used the term "I pity the fool!" :-)
Unknown|W|P|Just got back from the Tucson rally, they did burn a Mexican flag. Their shirts were riddled with racist slogans. There was a peace chain formed around them by our side, to shield their hatred from the marchers. Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:Do their wives call them Minutemen too?
No, actually most of their wives call them "My ex."
Eli Blake|W|P|Gosh dang, Ted.Up at the top of your blog where the ads go, is an ad for a Republican running for Congress in Idaho and a 'Meet Republican singles' ad.
This is one reason why I haven't signed up to accept advertising on my blog.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I told Ted I would donate some of the seed money to his campaign...:(Although actually this is a case of "It is okay I do it." The right has a habit of demanding we adhere to their stupid standards but then not fufilling them themselves.
We need to put up a big electric fence and maybe kill a few, I'm sorry, but that's what we need to do.Well, I guess it's nice to hear that he's sorry he wants to kill people. I wonder if he considers himself pro-life?|W|P|114460003663908707|W|P|As Heard on NPR|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|Wonder if we can test the fence out by throwing a few of these jerks into it first.
So, our friend J. D. Hayworth is at it again. He has decided to step into the whole ELL silliness by authoring a bill that declares that the bill passed by the Arizona Legislature is in compliance with federal law. Done.
Wow...it's really that simple, eh?
Nice of Mr. Hayworth to jump into this whole thing when it is still up before a federal judge whose job it is to interpret the law. You know, that pesky separation of powers thing.
He says that he did this at the request of Tom Horne. A simpler solution for Horne would have been to ask his friends at the legsilature to pass a bill that actually funded English Language Learning in this state. It is helpful to point out that Horne can't be too confident that the bill that was passed will address the issue to the satisfaction of Judge Rainer Collins or he wouldn't run to Hayworth before Collins has even issued a decision.
The reason why the bill has had so much trouble getting by Gov. Janet Napolitano was that the Republicans insisted in using the ELL issue as an excuse for corporate tax credits. What the heck a tax credit for private schools has to do with English Language Learners is beyond me. Few, if any, private schools in Arizona serve English language learners. You have to wonder how the Republicans can be so scared of gay marriage, but they allow the unnatural union linking these two issues to continue.
Napolitano allowed the last version of the bill to pass without her signature even though it still had the tax credits, but it spent some money on English Language Learners. I guess the Republicans finally remembered what the bill was suposed to be for.
Hayworth's involvement in the issue follows a pattern established of late. His front page usually contains at least one item on some percieved policy failure on Napolitano's (or Goddard's) part. I guess this would make more sense if he was campaigning for state office. It also would be more appropriate if he was not using federal money to do this sort of campaigning on state issues. Last week, the State Democratic Party took him to task for his federally funded press person issuing campaign related statements.
For example, his press release on this issue contained this item:
According to news reports, a private attorney hired to represent the state by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard told U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that key parts of the Legislature's plan violate federal law, a strategy encouraged by the Governor. "It is shameful that the Governor and Attorney General have actively sabotaged the state's case and orchestrated a judicial power grab," said Hayworth. "We must not allow Arizona's ELL program to be run by an unelected and unaccountable federal judge just because the Governor can't bring herself to compromise with the legislature."See what I mean? He obviously thinks that Napolitano is an abject failure. Since he is such a man of principle and courage, I take it that he will take the first chance he can to run against her and rid this state of her menace. Oh? He whimped out of that? Can't be. He's so brave. He's so brave that he's ghostwritten a book picking on migrant workers. By the way, I've talked to a few people and there is no way that this thing has the time to percolate through the process this session, much less before Collins issues a decision. So, this thing is just a really elaborate press release paid for by you, the taxpayer.|W|P|114454463017862582|W|P|Clearly, They Aren't Giving the Man Enough to Do|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Geo|W|P|We often call bloviating, agitating politicians "demagogues" as a matter of course. But when someone like J.D. Hayworth comes along, you see where the word really reaches it's fullest sense.From the Wikipedia entry, a demagogue is someone who employs the "strategy of obtaining power by appealing to the gut feelings of the public, usually by powerful use of rhetoric and propaganda"
It also notes that "H. L. Mencken, an American critic, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
In fact, the Wiki article on demagogy is so spot-on a description of J.D.'s methods, it really ought to have his picture there for illustration. It's eerie how some of the specific techniques of the demagogue are those that Hayworth has most honed.
J.D. Hayworth: A Demagogue for the 21st Century.
GOPinsider|W|P|Anyone see the article in the New York Times this weekend about the family ties in the Abramoff case in which spouses of politicians and lobbyists were paid by Abramoff and his supporters? How soon will it come out that Abramoff was paying part of Mary Hayworth's salary at J.D.'s PAC that she was running? Geo|W|P|The strategy here, as I understand it, is to basically smear Busby just enough so she doesn't get an outright majority in the Special. Not everyone who hears the smear attempt will take the effort to understand the underlying farce. If they can keep Busby from getting 51%, then they can force a runoff.Then, they're hoping that the various voters who are currently supporting any number of GOP and Indy candidates will get behind the one top vote-getting Republican who will compete against Busby in the runoff.
The NRCC know what they're doing is basically dishonest. You'd never want to do business with people that behave in such a scurrilous manner. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them, at all. But somehow, in politics, their lack of integrity is roundly cheered by many. Which, of course, is quite hypocritical, dishonest and sad.
All the more reason why people in CA-50 who TRULY are people of integrity - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - should clearly repudiate the NRCC tactics and vote for Busby.
Jeff Stapleton|W|P|Gorman is such a Republican tool. There are no original ideas from Gorman. At least Gould and Pearce have the courtesy of coming up with crazy ideas.In the past couple of months, pro-marriage supporters in two states, California and Florida, have failed to gather enough signatures to put marriage protection amendments on their ballots. The anti-marriage activists have started to brag that these failures show that support for traditional marriage is declining and that it is a good sign that they are going to eventually succeed in legalizing same-sex marriage.Organizers are having a lot more trouble collecting the signatures they need than they thought. They have been working on this since last summer, but still apparently haven't gotten their act together. They were also stymied in their efforts to collect in front of some churches, since they seem to take that whole thing about their tax-exempt status seriously. Wait, couldn't they pay for signatures? R-Cubed's spies tell us that neither of the big signature gathering firms that work Arizona has been contracted to work on this effort. One has actually refused to carry it all together, worried that it will turn off people to signing other things that they are working on. By the way, Republican mastermind and accused voter registration form destroyer Nathan Sproul is one of the people helping out this effort. Gosh, this sort of failure will be so bad for his reputation as an organizer. Too bad, Nate.|W|P|114439384393293392|W|P|I Cried About This for, I Dunno, Seconds|W|P|prezelski@aol.comWe here in Arizona can help show that this is not true by putting the Protect Marriage Amendment on the ballot in November but we need your help to do it!
To get this amendment on the ballot, the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, which United Families Arizona is a member of, must turn in 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters by July 6th We are making good progress, but we need a lot more help to reach that goal.
Polls show that the marriage amendment should win in November if we can get it on the ballot. Passing this amendment will not only protect marriage in Arizona, but send a strong signal to the rest of the country that marriage is important and we WILL defend it.
Matthew d.|W|P|Actually, since it's a ballot initiative, IRS guidelines allow non-profit c(3) organizations to support it as much as they choose. Most (if not all) churches are c(3)'s for the tax-exempt status, and as such, they are free to do as they choose with ballot initiatives.Perhaps you're thinking of supporting or opposing specific candidates, which c(3)'s are not allowed to do.
Jane Arizona|W|P|And those gay homosexuals who want special, special rights prance down Central Avenue waving their Canadian flags! We must continue to be as offended as possible at everything they do.Or, we could get a life and move on.
Zelph|W|P|What ever became of the criminal charges against Nathan Sproul for voter fraud in Oregon?
This is from the front page of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's website. You know, the office that's run by Tom Horne, one of those conservatives that goes on and on about declining standards:
The paradigm shift, since I took office is that the Department of Education will be primarily a service organization, helping school districts and charter schools achieve more academic success. The Department is also an organization that assures compliance, and we will have to be conscientious about that, but the compliance function will be secondary. The primary function is now: service.Okay, what the heck is with that comma after "paradigm shift?" The second sentence looks to be a run-on and doesn't seem to belong there. That third sentence is improperly punctuated. The whole paragraph smacks of meaningless "corporatespeak." It is the sort of thing a college student would write when he or she hopes to snow their instructor by how many big words and long sentences they can throw around. Most of the English teachers in this state would hand this back to Mr. Horne with a big red "rewrite" written across the top. NB - Yes, I make grammar and puncutation errors too. But I'm not in charge of the schools, am I?|W|P|114433591732143896|W|P|Once We Get this "English Language Learner" Thing Cleared Up, Maybe We Should Send the Superintendent's Webmaster for a Refresher|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
NatashaRA|W|P|Wow, talk about setting the bar for standards.
A letter from Sen. Ron Gould to Gov. Janet Napolitano, courtesey Espresso Pundit:
Re: Illegal Alien March on April 10th Dear Governor Napolitano: I believe there is a cause for great concern regarding public safety during the upcoming protest march. The promoters of this event claim that over 100,000 demonstrators will be in attendance. They also claim that this will be a peaceful event, but we cannot go on the assumption that it will be peaceful. The marchers may be peaceful, but outside agitators could disrupt the event. If this happens, the march could very easily turn violent. With this in mind, I request that the Arizona National Guard be stationed in the area of the march. The presence of the Guard will have a stabilizing effect on the entire situation. In addition to stability, the guard would get real life experience in crowd control. I hope that you will give my request serious consideration. Sincerely, Senator Ron Gould
Yes, call out the National Guard. Stationing heavilly armed people along the protest route is the best way to send a message of peace and harmony. Such a policy has worked so well in the past.
Does this call come from anyone in local law enforcement that thinks that they can't handle the situation? I didn't think so.
This alarmism from Gould and other conservatives is not justified from our experience over the last few weeks with other marches here in Arizona. Of course, if the rhetoric you use equates immigrants and their supporters with criminals and terrorists, it would only be natural to think that any gathering will result in violence. Such a request has more to do with pandering to the fears of the xenophobes that support people like Gould and his colleagues than any concern about actual violence.
I also have to wonder if the pleas to call out the Guard are motivated by people who are worried about the growing movement and want to intimidate the protestors. The anti-immigrant forces have had a free ride in the mainstream media, particularly local television. Here you have the other side asserting themselves and getting their point across. This just won't do, will it?
NB - Anyone hear that Tom Horne is suggesting campus lockdowns during the protest? I don't think students should cut class either, but literally suggesting that gates on campus be "locked up" to keep students from expressing a political view is probably not the sort of civics lesson we want to give them.|W|P|114433157285535186|W|P|It Worked So Well at Kent State in 1970|W|P|prezelski@aol.com GOPinsider|W|P|Maybe the National Guard could go out to Sen. Gould's house in Lake Havasu and make him take down the Confederate Flag he fly's. What country does he think he lives in anyway - I hate these people who fly the flags of foreign countries. Especially the flags of countries that attacked the United States! Tedski|W|P|Horne's advice has been quoted in several places as asking schools to "lock the gates," quite different from the more metaphorical "lockdown." GOPinsider|W|P|FYI - latest news is that chickensh*t state lawmakers are leaving early on Monday to avoid the march. Nice to see representative democracy in action!
Eli Blake|W|P|SonoranDesertRat hit this right on the nose.Immigrants and their supporters are marching to protest the fact that they are not being treated as the productive and peaceful members of society that they are. It would make no sense for people trying to make this point to commit acts of violence.
If anything, any acts of violence would play right into the hands of Sen. Gould and others on the extreme right. They could then claim that these people are 'criminals.'
My guess is that they want to make that claim anyway, hence the call for the national guard, then they can claim that the guard's presence in and of itself was responsible for preventing violence.
But the Governor won't play into their hands. And I'm sure that the Phoenix police department will be on the scene and ready to arrest any agitators who try to provoke anything, and I bet if that happens and they arrest some, it will turn out that they are members of the Minutemen or the John Birch Society or some other loony tunes rightist group.
Larry King announced tonight at a meeting of Democratic activists that he has decided against running for the Democratic nomination in CD 5. This clears the way for Harry Mitchell.
King had earlier stated that he would drop out if Mitchell joined the race.
Now that he doesn't have the primary to distract him, I guess Mitchell can actually work on his website.|W|P|114422115403563025|W|P|King Abdicates|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Geo|W|P|I donated to King's campaign, and I still think his dropping out is a good thing. First of all, he'd originally promised to do it if Mitchell ran. Then he seemed to flip on that promise when Mitchell declared. Now it seems as if the reality of his chances, or possibly the importance of keeping your word, has caught back up to him. I respect him a lot and wish him the best.
I know there has eben an undercurrent of some irritation among some of King's supporters because Mitchell declared. Some even railed at the DCCC getting involved and urging Mitchell to run, as if that were somehow inappropriate. Frankly, I'm glad to have the strongest candidate possible to unseat the bombastic demagogue Hayworth.
I appreciate King's dedication to the Dem cause and trust he will be campaigning hard for Mitchell this fall, as will I.
Michael Bryan|W|P|I'm quite surprised actually. I spoke to King about a week ago and he said that he was definitely staying in. Someone really put the pressure on, or promised him something nice... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Be nice you two. He was really tore up at the meeting. AZ Gringo|W|P|That's got to be painful for Larry. He's a great guy, and he's been working on this campaign for nearly 2 years.While I like the idea of him becoming the next chair, the ethical statndards governing members of the judiciary in Arizona would preclude that. Judges and judicial candidates are not allowed to hold party office.
Remember, every little thing you do, we here at R-Cubed find out about it. We have a network of spies that would be the envy of the old East German Stasi. We are everywhere.
For example, one of our agents spotted Rep. Ted Downing looking over some documents related to the procedures for the election of a State Party Chairman. Things that make you go hmmmm...
I never really liked that song, or C + C Music Factory or Arsenio Hall for that matter.
Anyhow, what is up with that? Come on, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is running, or even that he has recruited a friend to run. If there is anyone who would pour over that document for fun (besides a geek like me), it would be a former World Bank consultant like Downing, wouldn't it?|W|P|114420346170440359|W|P|Very Interesting|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think we can safely say that unlike with you Ted, there will be no Draft Ted Downing movement.I would say other things but you would smack me for it.
Eli Blake|W|P|Don't worry about the media.That is why we now have the blogosphere. If the media wants to drone their way into irrelevance, well I guess more people will get more of their information from the internet. It is no longer possible for people who want to suppress a story, to completely suppress the story.
The Menudo Queen|W|P|Tucson Citizen coverage here:http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/8076.php